The Jere Beasley Report March 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Pastor Ken Austin: A Beacon Of Hope At Mercy House

In the heart of Montgomery, Alabama, Pastor Ken Austin stands as a pillar of strength and compassion. As the executive director of Mercy House, Ken has dedicated his life to serving the community, providing support and resources to those in need.

A Calling Answered

Pastor Ken Austin’s journey began with a profound spiritual calling. In January 2012, he accepted the call to preach the gospel, leading to the establishment of the New Walk of Life Church. His ministry, aptly named Ministry About People (M.A.P.), focuses on outreach and community service, embodying the church’s mission to walk in the Spirit and serve others.

Mercy House: A Sanctuary 

Mercy House, under Pastor Austin’s leadership, has become a sanctuary in Montgomery for the homeless and those struggling with poverty. The organization provides essential services such as food, showers, and clean clothes, aiming to restore dignity and hope to the most vulnerable members of the community. Ken’s commitment to Mercy House is evident in his hands-on approach, often seen driving a bus to pick up children for school and ensuring they have access to education and after-school programs.

A Life of Service

His dedication extends beyond his pastoral duties. He has served on the board of directors for Common Ground Montgomery, a nonprofit focused on community development, and has held various roles within the organization, including director of operations and community relations. Ken’s work with Mercy House and Common Ground highlights his unwavering commitment to uplifting the community and providing opportunities for growth and development.

Impact and Legacy

Through his tireless efforts, Ken Austin has touched countless lives. His work at Mercy House not only addresses immediate needs but also fosters long-term change by empowering individuals to overcome their circumstances. The impact of his ministry is felt throughout Montgomery, as he continues to inspire others with his compassion, dedication, and unwavering faith.

In a world where many people face uncertainty and hardship, Pastor Ken Austin remains a beacon of hope, guiding his community towards a brighter future. I encourage you to consider supporting Mercy House, including financially. You can rest assured that this is a worthy cause. Ken is doing the Lord’s work and is a dedicated servant!

TALC LITIGATION

Bankruptcy Judge Hears Evidence, Weighs Whether To Allow J&J’s 3rd Bankruptcy Attempt To Proceed

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. Lopez of the Southern District of Texas gave the parties ten days to present evidence and arguments on the merits of Johnson & Johnson’s third attempt at using the Texas Two-Step to force a resolution on tens of thousands of ovarian cancer claimants.  

Beginning on February 18, 2025, the court heard arguments on motions to dismiss, motion to confirm the bankruptcy plan, objections to plan confirmation, and other motions related to the voting process and other ancillary issues. 

The testimony of witnesses followed, including lawyers representing ovarian cancer claimants, representatives of Johnson & Johnson and Red River Talc (J&J’s newest subsidiary), a representative from Epiq Global (the balloting agent handling the solicitation and vote tabulation, as well as bankruptcy experts.

Motions to Dismiss the Chapter 11 Case altogether were filed by the Coalition of Counsel for Justice for Talc Claimants (of which Beasley Allen is a member), by the U.S. Trustee (a division of the Department of Justice), and by Travelers’ and other insurance companies.  Multiple additional parties also filed motions to join these motions to dismiss.  As readers may recall, Johnson & Johnson’s first two efforts at bankruptcy were dismissed by Judge Kaplan, of the District of New Jersey Bankruptcy Court, after a ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals finding that Johnson & Johnson’s made-for-bankruptcy entities could not demonstrate financial distress.

In this latest attempt at bankruptcy, J&J created another new, non-operating entity, the sole purpose of which is to hold the talcum powder liability and file for bankruptcy.  J&J solicited votes for a prepackaged bankruptcy plan during the summer of 2024.  Since that vote, J&J has made some additional modifications to the plan.  Those modifications have not been subject to a vote.  

In addition to the motions to dismiss, The Coalition, the U.S. Trustee, the United States of America (on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs), Randi S. Ellis (as the Future Claimants’ Representative), and an assortment of insurance carriers and other individual claimants and entities have all filed separate Objections to Confirmation of the Plan.  Those Objections were later joined by even more individuals.

There are many reasons underlying the objections.  Among the most frequently cited is the inclusion of non-consensual releases that J&J’s plan would grant to non-debtor entities.  The Supreme Court struck down similar releases in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan in June.  The objections also argue that Johnson & Johnson improperly solicited changes of votes after the voting deadline, based on newly negotiated terms, which were not in the form of a court-approved solicitation.

The trial ended on Feb. 28. The objectors to J&J’s plan, including Beasley Allen, created a fulsome record with facts supporting dismissal and voting and plan objections. The judge will make his decision and the options are approval, dismissal or a new vote. 

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to work for fair compensation for our talcum powder clients.  

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

Hopefully the ongoing battle with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is nearing its final stages. Beasley Allen remains totally committed to battling J&J on every front. Currently, Johnson & Johnson’s third bankruptcy attempt is the focus. Remember, there have been two prior bankruptcy attempts that failed. We will continue to fight in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. I am confident this litigation will wind up in a manner with justice finally being done for J&J’s victims. 

Beasley Allen lawyers Leigh O’Dell and Ted Meadows head our Talc Ovarian Cancer Litigation Team. From the beginning, they have been directly involved in all phases of the talc litigation. Andy Birchfield, who heads up our Mass Torts Section, has been actively involved with the team in all aspects of this litigation. Andy and our firm became J&J’s target. They have tried very hard to intimidate the firm. That has not worked and will not work. 

This has been a tough battle, but it is a critically important and necessary one, and our lawyers do not intend to back down. Beasley Allen will continue its battle against J&J’s blatant abuse of the bankruptcy system. 

The following Beasley Allen lawyers are members of the Talc Litigation Team:

Leigh O’Dell, Ted Meadows, Kelli Alfreds, Ryan Beattie, Beau Darley, David Dearing, Liz Achtemeier, Jennifer Emmel, James Lampkin, Caty O’Quinn, Cristina Rodriguez, Brittany Scott, and Matt Teague.

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Understanding The Statute Of Limitations For Camp Lejeune Claims

One of the top questions we receive from lawyers handling Camp Lejeune claims relates to the statute of limitations for filing a suit on a timely filed administrative claim. Getting to the answer requires connecting a few statutory dots.

Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA)

Starting with the CLJA, suit cannot be filed later than ‘180 days’ after the administrative claim is denied pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 2675. Under this code section, this means that suit on the administrative claim cannot be filed until the occurrence of either:

• The claim is “finally denied by the [Department of Navy] in writing and sent by certified or registered mail”; or
• The Department of Navy fails to make a “final disposition” of the claim within six months after the claim was filed.

Mandatory vs. Permissive Filing

There is an important distinction between a mandatory and permissive filing of a Camp Lejeune lawsuit:

• Mandatory Filing: If the Department of Navy makes a final denial of the claim, then under the CLJA and 28 U.S. Code § 2675, the claimant MUST file suit within 180 days after the date on which the claim is denied, or the claim will be barred by the statute of limitations.
• Permissive Filing: If six months go by without the Department of Navy making a final disposition of the claim, then under Sec. 2675(a), the claimant MAY deem the failure of disposition as a “constructive denial” and MAY file suit in federal court. This situation, which applies to the vast majority of claims, creates a permissive right to file suit. Importantly, the claimant need not take any such action and can continue to wait for a final determination per the statutory requirement – theoretically indefinitely.

Considerations Before Filing Suit

While a claimant may have the right (but not the obligation) to file suit, whether to do so has to be thoughtfully considered. Filing suit on a pending claim will terminate any eligibility for administrative resolution, including through the Elective Option. Additionally, claimants should understand that filing suit does not necessarily “place them in line” or result in “moving the case” as it may in traditional litigations. The court has issued a stay on all CLJA actions unless/until the plaintiff is selected for discovery/trial. Currently, the court is focused on a select group of plaintiffs with “Track 1” injuries: 

• bladder cancer, 
• kidney cancer, 
• leukemia, 
• non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and 
• Parkinson’s disease.

Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune Team

If you need help with a claim, have questions about the litigation, or would like to co-counsel with Beasley Allen on one of your cases, reach out to us.  Our Toxic Torts lawyers are heavily involved in all aspects of this litigation, including bellwether trial work. 

The lawyers on the Camp Lejeune Litigation Team include Saima Khan, Wesley Merillat, Ryan Kral, Tucker Osborne, Travis Chin, Miland Simpler, Matt Griffith, Jeff Price, David Diab, Gavin King, Elizabeth Weyerman and Elliot Bienenfeld.

Rhon Jones, who heads our Toxic Torts Section, is heavily involved in all aspects of the litigation, including the Resolution Committee. Rhon is in leadership as a member of the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee.

The lawyers on our litigation team will be honored to work with you if you need help with a claim or have questions about the litigation. You can contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section. She will have one of the lawyers on the litigation team respond to you.

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

Social Media Addiction/Personal Injury Litigation Update

Lawyers at Beasley Allen are currently pursuing claims on behalf of individuals arising out of their addiction to Social Media Platforms. Defendants include Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. Injuries include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and suicidal ideation. Additionally, Beasley Allen is representing school districts for expenses they have incurred due to problems related to their students’ social media addictions. 

Currently, lawsuits are being filed in two different courts in California – the Northern District of California – Oakland Division (overseen by the Honorable Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers), and in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (overseen by the Honorable Judge Karen Kuhl). 

The Social Media Litigation was first consolidated into the MDL in 2022, where it now involves hundreds of claims by individuals, and school districts. Thirty-five state attorneys general were originally involved. All allege the platforms, billion-dollar companies, are designed to addict people, particularly minors, resulting in additional mental health harms. 

The State Attorneys General specifically assert various consumer protection, fraudulent concealment, and other claims brought under their respective state statutes. 

State attorneys general and counsel for defendants have been in a heated discovery dispute since September of last year. U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang issued an order requiring state attorneys general offices to hand over to defendants documents from a multitude of state agencies. The Attorneys General contended they did not have the statutory legal authority to force state agencies to hand over documents, and that this order “runs roughshod” over California’s divisions of power under the Constitution. 

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has authority over the third parties, has declined to provide access to the requested documents by Meta. The actions have led five attorneys general to back out of the litigation altogether. Judge Gonzalez Rogers has upheld the order, leading the attorneys general to ask the appellate court to block the order by mandamus authority. 

Meta’s $725 Million Privacy Suit Settlement Upheld By 9^th Circuit 

The Ninth Circuit has upheld Meta Platforms Inc.’s $725 million settlement over the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The court confirmed that the California District Court thoroughly reviewed the settlement terms before approval.

Objectors Sarah Feldman and Jill Mahaney argued that Judge Vince Chhabria did not properly analyze potential minimum recoveries under federal privacy laws. However, the appellate panel found no abuse of discretion by Judge Chhabria, who had compared the settlement’s benefits against potential recoveries and litigation risks.

The settlement, which covers about 253 million Facebook users, includes $180 million in attorney fees and nearly $4 million in costs. It resolves claims that Facebook violated privacy statutes and user contracts by sharing sensitive information without consent.

Despite objections, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the settlement was fair and reasonable. Class counsel expressed satisfaction with the decision, looking forward to distributing the settlement to the class.

The class is represented by Derek W. Loeser, Benjamin Gould and Cari Campen Laufenberg of Keller Rohrback LLP, and Lesley E. Weaver, Anne K. Davis, Benjamin F. Burry and Joseph W. Baier of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP.

The case is Sarah Feldman et al. v. Facebook Inc., case number 23-3550, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Source: Law360

TikTok Reinstated In App Stores

Apple and Google have reinstated TikTok in their U.S. app stores after removing it to comply with the new law banning the app. President Trump had issued an executive order to pause the ban’s enforcement, but Apple and Google wanted assurance from the Justice Department that they wouldn’t face fines. The law, signed by President Biden, required TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app to a non-Chinese owner due to national security concerns.

Despite the Trump executive order, confusion has persisted among tech companies. While Apple and Google removed TikTok, Oracle continued providing support. The Supreme Court upheld the law. Experts warned of a potential constitutional crisis if the ban’s enforcement is further delayed. Previously, Trump has indicated he may extend the nonenforcement period, raising questions about executive power.

TikTok, with 170 million U.S. users, remained functional on existing devices, though some creators reported glitches. ByteDance has resisted selling TikTok, partly due to Chinese government restrictions on exporting the app’s algorithm. We will continue to monitor this matter. 

Source: New York Times

The TikTok Battle Involving Class Certification

A California federal judge has suggested that there might be too many individualized issues to certify a class of thousands of current and former TikTok content moderators in the lawsuit alleging the platform caused mental health issues from exposure to graphic content.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria indicated he was leaning towards TikTok’s position that the claims can’t proceed on a class-wide basis due to the multitude of individualized issues. TikTok also argued that choice of law issues involving numerous states preclude certification of the proposed nationwide class.

Judge Chhabria expressed doubts about the need for a class action. Lead plaintiff Reece Young’s suit alleges ByteDance and TikTok are liable for mental health issues from viewing disturbing videos. TikTok argued that the moderators were employed by third-party vendors and that the plaintiffs couldn’t show TikTok owed a duty to those workers.

There are a number of factors that Judge Chhabria is considering. There are third-party vendors involved as well as issues dealing with performance metrics and software. 

Judge Chhabria acknowledged that exposure to disturbing images increases the risk of mental health harm, but at press time he had not issued a ruling.

Previously, Judge Chhabria reduced the scope of the suit. He kept the negligence claim but dismissed the cause of action under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Similar allegations have been made against other social media companies, with Facebook and YouTube reaching settlements in related cases.

The case is Reece Young et al. v. ByteDance Inc. et al., case number 3:22-cv-01883, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team

Joseph VanZandt, who leads our firm’s Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team, is co-lead counsel for the Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) for the plaintiffs in California State Court. Joseph is also a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in the MDL, helping lead the federal social media multidistrict litigation. The Beasley Allen litigation team handling the social media cases is set out below.

Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team

Members of Beasley Allen’s Social Media Litigation Team are:

Joseph VanZandt (who heads the team) Jennifer Emmel, Suzanne Clark, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Davis Vaughn, Soo Seok Yang, James Lampkin, Seth Harding and Slade Methvin. Andy Birchfield, who heads our Mass Torts Section, also works with the team.

MOTOR VEHICLE & TRUCKING LITIGATION

$2.5 Billion Verdict Against Ford In Truck Rollover Case

A Georgia federal court jury has ordered Ford Motor Co. to pay over $2.5 billion in punitive damages to the family of a couple killed in a 2022 rollover crash involving a Super Duty truck. The jury found Ford at fault for the deaths of Herman and Debra Mills, who were driving a 2015 Ford F-250 Super Duty truck when it rolled over and the roof collapsed and crushed down over the occupants.

The jury had awarded $32.5 million in compensatory damages in the first phase of the trial. This phase was on punitive damages. 

The Mills’ children argued that the roofs of Super Duty trucks from 1999-2016 were weak compared to F-150 models. Ford plans to appeal, claiming the verdict is extreme and unsupported by evidence. The jury assigned 85% of the fault to Ford and 15% to Debra Mills, the driver.

The lawsuit claimed that the roofs on 1999-2016 “Super Duty” trucks are weak, with a strength-to-weight rating (SWR) of 1.1, far below the 4.0 minimum required for a “good” rating by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Ford argued that the roofs were safe, and that roof strength does not impact injuries in rollovers, a stance rejected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the IIHS.

The plaintiffs are represented by James E. Butler Jr., Ramsey B. Prather, Daniel E. Philyaw and Allison B. Bailey of Butler Prather LLP, Larae Dixon Moore of Page Scrantom Sprouse Tucker & Ford P.C. and Frank M. Lowrey IV of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP.

Source: Law360

Cybertruck Crash Raises Concerns About Tesla’s Software

A recent crash involving a Tesla Cybertruck in self-driving mode has raised concerns about the reliability of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software. The accident occurred in Reno, Nevada, when the Cybertruck failed to merge out of a lane, hit the curb, and crashed into a pole. The driver, Jonathan Challinger, has warned others on social media to stay vigilant and not become complacent while using the feature.

The crash has caused renewed scrutiny of Tesla’s advanced driver assistance software, which has faced criticism and investigations following several previous incidents. Despite CEO Elon Musk’s claims of significant safety improvements in the latest software version, experts argue that the technology is not yet ready for deployment, especially in complex driving scenarios like lane endings and merges.

Tesla plans to start testing a paid robotaxi service by June in Austin, Texas, followed by other regions. However, the recent accident highlights ongoing issues with FSD’s nighttime detection, data mapping, and reliance on cameras, which can be problematic in challenging visibility conditions.

Source: Claims Journal

Mixed Arbitration Order In Case Against Fiat Chrysler

A Michigan federal judge has issued a ruling that allowed 7 individual plaintiffs to proceed with their claims against Fiat Chrysler (FCA), but the judge ruled that an arbitrator must decide if the other 6 drivers alleging FCA sold them vehicles with defective engines can pursue their claims in court.

Judge Matthew F. Leitman found that FCA did not waive its right to seek arbitration by addressing the claims’ merits before checking for arbitration clauses in the drivers’ purchase agreements. Judge Leitman further stated that FCA did not waive its right to arbitrate because, though it may have known some purchase agreements contained arbitration clauses in prior cases, it didn’t have actual knowledge in this case and couldn’t have relied on knowledge from prior cases. He further ruled that FCA’s failure to seek early discovery did not amount to waiver, since motion to dismiss deadlines were approaching and such early discovery wouldn’t have been complete by the deadline. Even though Judge Leitman recognized the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments were “serious,” he nonetheless ruled that an arbitrator, not the court, must rule on those arguments due to the language of the arbitration clauses in the purchase agreements.

In this case against FCA, less than half of the named plaintiffs had arbitration clauses. The proceedings related to those 6 plaintiffs are stayed pending arbitrator’s ruling. The other seven class reps will continue in federal court and proceed to discovery, class certification, and, ultimately, trial. That’s a victory for those plaintiffs.

There have been at least 7 previous arbitration rulings on this very same issue against FCA. Those cases were sent back to the trial court, avoiding arbitration. Based on those previous rulings, we expect these 6 arbitration class members’ claims will return to federal court.  

The drivers are represented Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams and Dylan Martin of Beasley Allen; E. Powell Miller, Dennis A. Lienhardt and Mitchell J. Kendrick of The Miller Law Firm PC; Mark P. Chalos and Hannah Lazarz of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; and Patrick Newsom of Newsom Law PLC.

The case is Brian Fisher et al. v. FCA US LLC, case number 2:23-cv-10426, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The Case For Raising Automobile Insurance Minimum Limits

Mike Crow, a veteran lawyer in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, writes for this issue about motor vehicle insurance. Here’s what Mike has to say: 

In my years of handling automobile crash cases, a lot of my clients say, “that’s not enough insurance to cover my medical bills”.  That comment is made after I explain to them that the at-fault driver only has a policy with $25,000 liability limits. 

There are many reasons to raise required levels of insurance, and I have set forth below several reasons why this should be done: 

• Over 40,000 people are killed and more than 2 million are injured in motor vehicle crashes each year. The economic cost of these crashes exceeds 340 billion dollars a year, but only 54% of these costs are paid by insurance companies. Crash victims, health care providers, charities, and local governments end up bearing the rest of the economic burden. 

• Many states set their minimum levels of insurance decades ago, and they have not been changed to reflect increases in medical care costs, increases in motor vehicle repair costs, or even inflation generally. 

• Despite fears that raising required minimum limits of insurance will increase premiums, states that have raised minimum levels have seen a cost of insurance increase at a lower rate than the country as a whole over equivalent time. During the time of 2007 through 2022, states that raised minimum limits saw a premium increase of approximately 2.2% and the premium increase for the entire country during that time was approximately 2.3%. 

• Higher minimum insurance levels are associated with lower rates of uninsured motorists. The majority of states that have raised minimum limits saw the proportion of uninsured drivers decrease. 

• Raising the minimum insurance levels helps crash victims who would otherwise be left without full compensation for their loss and relieves the financial burden on the healthcare providers, charities, local governments, and taxpayers.

 Raising minimum limits of insurance will better protect victims of motor vehicle crashes and their families from being left with hefty bills to pay out of pocket. This simple policy change would bring insurance requirements in line with the real cost of motor vehicle crashes and help to alleviate financial burdens on individuals and families affected by crashes. The perceived downside to such a public policy – increased insurance rate and increased numbers of uninsured motorists is really a myth and not a fact. 

Sources: One Auto Insurance Database Report, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, National Hwy. Traffic Safety Administration 

Tesla Announces Recall Of Over 380,000 Vehicles 

Tesla is recalling nearly 380,000 vehicles in the U.S. due to a power steering assist failure that could increase steering effort at low speeds, raising the risk of a crash. This follows a year-long investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) after reports of steering failures from Tesla owners. Over 50 vehicles have been towed due to the issue.

The recall affects some 2023 Model 3 sedans and Model Y crossovers with older software, which could face an overvoltage breakdown, overstressing motor drive components. If this occurs while driving, the steering remains unaffected, but once stopped, the steering assist may fail and stay disabled when moving again.

Tesla has identified 3,012 warranty claims related to this issue but is unaware of any crashes or deaths. An over-the-air software update has been released to fix the problem. This is Tesla’s second major recall this year, following a January recall of 239,000 vehicles for malfunctioning rear-view cameras. 

Source: Claims Journal

PRODUCT LIABILITY

U.S. Product Recalls Increase Again In 2024

In 2024, the number of U.S. product recalls remained high, with over 3,200 events recorded for the second consecutive year, according to Sedgwick Brand Protection’s 2025 U.S. State of the Nation Recall Index. The report highlights 3,232 recalls across five industries, marking the second-highest annual total in the past six years. It should be noted that 2023 and 2024 are the only consecutive years in the past decade with over 3,200 recall events. However, the 680.9 million defective products recalled in 2024 was the lowest since 2015, a significant drop from nearly 1.5 billion units in 2022.

Key industry milestones in 2024 include:

• Consumer products: Second-highest recall total in eight years.

• Medical devices: Four-year high in recall events.

• Food and drink: Second-lowest annual total in a decade, despite a six-year high in units impacted.

• Pharmaceuticals: Eleven-year low in defective units recalled.

Litigation trends noted in the report include lawsuits against government agencies and regulatory actions over product safety. The Federal Trade Commission faced a lawsuit from the National Automobile Dealers Association over new transparency rules, and over 20 state Departments of Transportation sued the Federal Highway Administration regarding greenhouse gas emission measurements.

Many organizations with a mission that includes consumer protection are concerned over early actions by the Trump Administration that are reducing the regulatory powers of the federal government. The DOGE activity by Elon Musk is firing federal employees and shutting down a number of federal agencies that have consumer protection responsibilities. An example is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that directly affects consumers and their rights.

Source: Claims Journal

Dangerous Vehicle Alterations 

Lawyers in our Atlanta office continue to handle cases involving dangerous vehicle alterations. While personalization of vehicles continues to gain popularity and some alterations may even increase vehicle safety, others can prove fatal. 

One especially dangerous vehicle alteration that continues to put the public in danger is the practice of installing lift kits on trucks. Lifting a truck changes the height of the vehicle altogether, thus altering interactions with other vehicles. Vehicles are generally designed to have bumpers at the same or similar height, so that when collisions inevitably occur, the vehicles come into contact at relatively similar points on the body of the vehicle. 

Lift kits serve to raise vehicles higher off the ground, therefore causing bumper mismatches to occur. Bumper mismatch crashes are an increasingly common and extremely dangerous type of wreck. When a lifted truck meets an un-lifted vehicle of any kind, crashworthiness structures within both vehicles are ineffective as designed. 

For example, if a lifted truck meets a factory-height car, the car runs the risk of going entirely underneath the truck, severely injuring or killing any occupant inside the car. Similarly, if a lifted truck meets a factory-height truck, the lower vehicle will incur significantly more damage due to the bumpers not meeting square on. This can cause the passenger compartment of the lower vehicle to crush more than it normally would, thus failing to protect occupants as designed.  

Georgia Judge Rejects Untimely Paragard IUD Claims In MDL

A Georgia federal judge has dismissed a large number of claims against Teva Pharmaceutical and Cooper Cos. regarding alleged defects in Paragard intrauterine devices, citing untimeliness. U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May ruled that around 100 claims were filed after the statute of limitations had expired in states like New York, Michigan, and Idaho.

However, the judge did not dismiss over 100 other claims, as plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the companies fraudulently concealed the defects to delay the filing of claims. Judge May stated that there was enough evidence to suggest that the defendants intentionally misled plaintiffs about the defects.

Teva and Cooper initially attempted to dismiss a master complaint in 2021, arguing that the Paragard IUD had brittle arms prone to breaking, causing complications. They also allegedly used subpar materials and concealed the defects.

In September, Teva and Cooper claimed that 236 short-form complaints were untimely, with some barred by statutes of limitations in six states and others by statutes of repose in states like Iowa and Texas. Judge May agreed to dismiss most claims from states where the statute of limitations had expired, but she allowed many claims to proceed due to allegations of fraudulent concealment. In some cases, Judge May converted dismissal bids to motions for summary judgment where the removal date of the device was unclear.

The plaintiffs are represented by Fibich Leebron Copeland & Briggs, Childers Schlueter & Smith LLC, Keller Postman LLC, Motley Rice LLC, Schneider Hammers LLC, Porter Malouf PA, Wexler Wallace LLP, The Cochran Firm, Sanders Phillips Grossman LLC, Ferrer Poirot & Wansbrough, Breit Biniazan, Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins PC, Cory Watson PC, Laminack Pirtle & Martines LLP, Parafinczuk Wolf, Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz PLLC, The Carson Law Firm PC, and Susen Law Group.

The case is In Re Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, case number 1:20-md-02974, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Source: Law360

INSURANCE LITIGATION

Texas Appellate Court Reverses $12 Million Verdict For COVID-19 Business Interruption Damages

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant issue for many businesses and public entities throughout the country has been insurance coverage for income losses incurred during the pandemic due to closing their doors or significantly decreasing their business operations. 

Business interruption insurance is typically included in commercial property policies but may be a stand-alone policy. Regardless, business interruption insurance helps a business cover bills and payroll in the event of a disaster that forces the business to temporarily close.  

Because many business owners were required to close as a result of the COVID-19 threat and the resultant government orders, many businesses turned to their insurance policies to determine if business interruption coverage could provide relief.  

As a prerequisite for coverage, nearly all property insurance policies require “direct physical loss or damage” to the insured premises.   Unfortunately, many policies specifically exclude losses caused by viruses or microorganisms.  Insurance companies overwhelmingly denied business interruption claims for losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the shutdowns, sparking many businesses to file lawsuits.  

During litigation, trial courts overwhelmingly granted motions to dismiss or for summary judgment against businesses seeking interruption coverage, and appellate courts have nearly universally held that the COVID-19 pandemic did not amount to “direct physical loss or damage” because the phrase in insurance policies requires visible, tangible physical alteration to property.  

In a rare case to reach trial, a jury awarded Baylor College of Medicine $12 million dollars in damages and attorneys’ fees arising from the COVID-19 virus spreading throughout its hospital, which caused the college to limit the number of patients it saw and to incur additional expenses to disinfect areas.  However, a panel of Texas’ Fourteenth Court of Appeals recently reversed the verdict, holding that the evidence did not support the verdict.

In reversing the verdict, the Texas appellate court held “that a ‘direct physical loss of or damage to’ property requires a tangible alteration or deprivation of the property.”  The court reasoned that COVID-19 did not cause a tangible alteration or deprivation of Baylor’s property. The court noted that it was “striving for uniformity with other jurisdictions” and joining the courts across the country holding that the COVID-19 pandemic failed to trigger business interruption coverage. 

Beasley Allen determined early on in this litigation that because of the “direct physical loss or damage” policy language contained in these practically universal property damage form policies, there likely was not any coverage. Our lawyers found a few clients that had weaker language in their policies, and we pushed the issue with the courts, but with little success. However, the Federal Government at that time provided some relief to our clients through COVID-19 Relief programs, which enabled our clients to obtain some relief when the insurance industry failed to do so. 

Our lawyers continue to monitor the development of business interruption cases, as well as other types of insurance litigation.  Paul Evans and Rebecca Gilliland, lawyers in the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, are among the Beasley Allen lawyers who handle insurance claims for our firm. 

Source: Law360

Almost $7 Billion Paid Out By Insurance Companies For LA Wildfires 

Insurance companies have paid out over $6.9 billion for losses from the two largest Los Angeles-area wildfires, according to the California Department of Insurance. This is an increase from the $4.2 billion reported on January 30. A total of 33,717 claims have been filed for various expenses, including 5,597 auto insurance claims amounting to $73 million.

Insured losses are expected to rise, potentially reaching between $8 billion and $40 billion. Mercury Insurance Group anticipates gross losses of $1.6 billion to $2.0 billion but expects recoveries to reduce this to $325 million or less. Other major insurers, including Travelers, USAA, Chubb, Allstate, and State Farm, have also reported losses exceeding $1 billion each.

The California FAIR Plan has paid over $914 million to policyholders and is seeking a $1 billion assessment from the state’s insurance commissioner. Total economic losses from the fires could range from $95 billion to $164 billion, according to UCLA.

Source: Insurance Journal

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

In Labor Law – NLRA And EEO Harmonized

On January 16, 2025, Jennifer A. Abruzzo, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel issued a memorandum in which she addressed how to comply with the requirements of both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws. She specifically addressed three areas to ensure compliance with these areas to give employees full protection under the laws. Abruzzo stated that laws under the NLRB and the EEO are “complementary” and that they should both be given “full effect.” The memo addresses: 

• workplace civility rules, 

• investigative confidentiality, and 

• employee speech and conduct.

Despite concerns from employers about the ability to satisfy both the NLRA and EEO laws, Abruzzo is clear that these bodies generally act independently, but in situations where they overlap, both can be given full effect especially given that the two bodies have similar principles and goals. Additionally, she opines that the bodies of law are based on a “commitment to dignity in the workplace. Abruzzo additionally determined that, despite employers concerns about “potential tensions are less stark than commonly believed.”  

Additionally, employers cannot use one set of obligations to avoid the other set of obligations. When assessing situations where employers may be violating either the NLRA or EEO laws, look for inconsistencies in enforcement. Where an employee is disciplined for an action, the NLRB is going to look at past similar situations to determine whether the conduct will maintain protection from the NLRA. Lastly, when evaluating matters related to discipline under the NLRA, the disciplinary action must be proportionate to the conduct that led to the response. 

Our employment law team consistently monitors federal EEO and NLRA opinions, rules, and updates and is ready to discuss these issues. If you have any questions regarding employment law issues, please feel free to contact one of our employment law team members Larry Golston, Leon Hampton, Lauren Miles or Jessi Haynes.

Source: National Labor Relations Board

New Jersey Red Lobster Under Fire For Permitting A Culture Of Sexual Harassment

Recently, New Jersey’s Attorney General and its Division on Civil Rights found that Red Lobster Hospitality, LLC (Red Lobster) violated a state law when it failed to address complaints of sexual harassment. The finding came when the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) issued a declaration of probable cause against the restaurant alleging that the company violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).  LAD is a comprehensive anti-discrimination law that, among other things, prohibits discrimination and bias-based harassment in the workplace. 

The DCR’s finding of probable cause stems from a verified complaint filed by a female employee of the Red Lobster restaurant. In her complaint, she alleged that a co-employee subjected her to consistent sexual harassment, including touching her back and buttocks and attempting to forcibly kiss her. The employee complained to the restaurant’s former general manager, but apparently the complaints were ignored. 

After the restaurant’s highest management failed to address her internal complaints, the employee was forced to resign. She subsequently filed a complaint against the restaurant and the perpetrator alleging that the party’s action caused a hostile workplace environment. After an investigation, the DCR found that the victim had, in fact, made complaints to the restaurant and its management failed to thoroughly investigate her allegations. Additionally, they found that the perpetrator was not subjected to any meaningful disciplinary actions. 

  Importantly, a key finding of the DCR is that “the complainant was effectively forced to resign – constructive discharge – after management allegedly declared the harasser more important to store operations and refused to separate their schedules.”  Commenting on the announcement, the Office of Attorney General stated:

DCR found sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the conditions of work became so intolerable that a reasonable person would be forced to resign.

It is important to note that DCR’s findings are not a final adjudication of the issue. The case will now proceed with a mediation/conciliation process in which the parties can choose to voluntarily resolve the case. If unsuccessful, the case will be prosecuted in the New Jersey state court system. 

$180 Million Settlement In Poultry Wage-Fixing Gets Approval

A Maryland federal judge has approved settlements totaling about $180 million in a lawsuit accusing several poultry companies of conspiring to keep wages low. This is considered a “historic recovery” by the workers involved.

The settlements involve companies like Allen Harim Foods, Amick Farms, Butterball, Fieldale Farms, Foster Poultry Farms, Jennie-O Turkey Store, Koch Foods, O.K. Foods, Tyson Foods, and Keystone Foods. The amounts each company will pay vary, with Tyson and Keystone paying the largest share at $115.5 million.

The settlement class includes all workers employed at these companies’ poultry processing plants, hatcheries, feed mills, and complexes in the U.S. from January 1, 2000, to July 20, 2021.

Combined with previous settlements, the total recovery for the workers is approximately $398 million, making it the second-largest recovery in a labor antitrust class action. The lawsuit, initiated in 2019, claimed that the companies violated the Sherman Act by holding secret meetings to set industry-wide wage and benefit benchmarks.

The workers are represented by Brent W. Johnson, Benjamin D. Brown, Daniel H. Silverman and Alison S. Deich of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Shana E. Scarlett, Rio R. Pierce, Steve W. Berman, Breanna Van Engelen and Elaine T. Byszewski of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Matthew K. Handley, Rachel E. Nadas, George F. Farah, Rebecca P. Chang and William Anderson of Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Brian D. Clark and Stephen J. Teti of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Candice J. Ender and Julia R. McGrath of Berger Montague.

The case is Jien et al. v. Perdue Farms Inc. et al., case number 1:19-cv-02521, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Source: Law360

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Alabama Law Immunizing State Officials Doesn’t Bar Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Alabama unemployment applicants can pursue claims that delays in the state’s benefits review process violated their federal civil rights. The court held that a state law requiring litigants to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit does not bar their procedural claims.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices found that the Alabama Supreme Court misapplied state law by ruling that the exhaustion requirement prevented Alabama courts from hearing claims about “extreme delays” in processing unemployment benefits during COVID-19. The ruling asserts that states cannot use exhaustion requirements to shield state officials from federal civil rights claims under U.S. Code Section 1983.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling created a catch-22, preventing claimants from suing to expedite the administrative process. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, argued that Alabama’s law was a neutral rule of judicial administration.

The case involved Nancy Williams and 21 other Alabamians who faced significant delays or never received hearings for their unemployment benefits claims. The Supreme Court’s decision allows them to challenge the delays without completing the administrative process first.

Williams and the other claimants are represented by Adam G. Unikowsky, Arjun R. Ramamurti and Emanuel Powell III of Jenner & Block LLP, Michael Forton, Lawrence Gardella and Farah Majid of Legal Services Alabama and David A. Strauss and Sarah M. Konsky of the University of Chicago Law School’s Jenner & Block Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic.

The case is Williams et al. v. Reed, case number 23-191, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

Lawyers on our firm’s Employment Litigation Team handle employment-related litigation for the firm. They also handle the firm’s Qui Tam Litigation (Whistleblower cases). Many whistleblowers will also have a retaliation claim related to their False Claims Act (FCA) claim. Quite often, an employee as a whistleblower will be the “original source” of an FCA claim.

Our Employment Litigation Team has had some tremendous success in both employment cases and qui tam cases. Currently, the team is pursuing some high-profile cases in courts around the country.

Whistleblower Litigation

4th Circuit Restores “Fake Therapy Notes” Whistleblower Lawsuit 

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently revived a whistleblower’s lawsuit accusing Acadia Healthcare of “creating fake notes about addiction therapy sessions that never happened,” ruling that the complaint alleged facts sufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss. This ruling reversed the district court’s order dismissing most of Lisa Wheeler’s (the whistleblower) complaint. In its ruling, the appellate court stated: 

Wheeler provides multiple examples of false therapy notes that were repeatedly used to falsify patient records, identifying Acadia staff who created and signed the notes, and specifying the dates and descriptions of the fictitious therapy sessions.

Specifically, the opinion revives claims against Acadia that relate to its North Carolina clinics, as the court held those claims contain sufficient detail in the complaint. The Fourth Circuit emphasized that “Wheeler – a former assistant medical director at a clinic in Asheville, North Carolina – had alleged that the clinic director told her that fake group-therapy notes were being created at other locations in the state.” Additionally, Wheeler claimed that Acadia’s oversight manager in North Carolina advised her to remain quiet about the misconduct. 

Wheeler filed her complaint in 2021, asserting that Acadia violated the False Claims Act by submitting fraudulent bills for reimbursement to Medicare and Medicaid. “Patients weren’t receiving the required therapy in addition to methadone to treat their addiction, she said, and Acadia had fabricated notes about therapy sessions that didn’t occur.”

Fraud continues to be a huge problem in many industries in this country. Our firm has increased its healthcare whistleblower practice for this very reason. Lawyers Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Tyner Helms, Paul Evans, Leon Hampton, Jessi Haynes and Lauren Miles are working in this area of litigation known as “qui tam” cases. 

Source: Law360 

The Health Net Settlement Of Cybersecurity FCA Claims

Health Net and its parent company, Centene Corp., have agreed to an $11.25 million settlement under the False Claims Act. This resolves a claim that Health Net falsely certified compliance with cybersecurity requirements in a U.S. Department of Defense contract. The settlement addresses claims related to Health Net Federal Services LLC’s contract to support the Defense Health Agency’s TRICARE program from 2010 to 2018.

The DOJ emphasized the importance of protecting sensitive government information, especially that of service members and their families. Health Net denied the allegations and stated that no data breach occurred. The company said it had a long-standing commitment to supporting service members and protecting their health information.

The DOJ alleged that Health Net failed to comply with federal cybersecurity requirements from March 2015 to March 2018, despite certifying compliance. Issues included not addressing known vulnerabilities, ignoring auditor reports, and poor management of security patches and password policies.

This settlement is part of the DOJ’s Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative, which focuses on improving cybersecurity practices among federal contractors.

Source: Law360

$29 Million Settlement Addresses FCA Overpayment Claims

SVCMC Inc., formerly known as Saint Vincents Catholic Medical Centers of New York, will pay $29 million to settle claims of retaining overpayments for medical services provided to retired military members and their families. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) claims that SVCMC and other entities involved in the Defense Health Agency’s insurance program violated the False Claims Act by concealing overpayments and continuing to submit inflated invoices.

The DOJ’s investigation revealed that these entities received substantial overpayments due to rate calculation errors over four years. Instead of reporting or repaying the excess funds, they allegedly conspired to hide the overpayments. The lawsuit, initiated by whistleblowers Jane Rollinson and Daniel Gregorie, led to a settlement where they will receive $5.6 million.

The other entities involved in this litigation, including Brighton Marine Inc., Christus Health Services, and Johns Hopkins Medical Services Corp., continue to contest the claims.

The federal government is represented by Diana K. Cieslak, Evan J. Ballan, Edward Croke and Jamie Ann Yavelberg of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division, and Andrew K. Lizotte and Sheila W. Sawyer of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maine.

The case is United States of America ex rel. Jane Rollinson et al. v. Brighton Marine Inc. et al., case number 2:16-cv-00447, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.

Source: Law360

Supreme Court Declines To Review Whistleblower’s Arbitration Challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a petition from Daniel Peterson, a former employee of Minerva Surgical Inc., who challenged an arbitral award favoring his former employer. Peterson’s petition questioned whether courts could defer to arbitrators when enforcing awards, especially if the awards disregard the law or violate public policy. He also sought clarification on the extent of judicial discretion in reviewing arbitral awards.

Peterson argued that while employees can waive their right to a jury trial for arbitration, this does not extend to other constitutional rights. He claimed courts have increasingly deferred to arbitrators, which he believes the Constitution does not allow.

Minerva Surgical, specializing in women’s healthcare, was accused by Peterson of covering up injuries caused by its surgical device for treating abnormal uterine bleeding. Peterson alleged retaliation when he tried to expose these dangers. His claims were sent to arbitration, where Minerva allegedly used false testimony to win nearly $200,000.

Peterson’s attempts to vacate the award, citing fraud and misrepresentation, were unsuccessful. The Tenth Circuit upheld the award, stating courts lack the power to intervene in arbitration matters.

The case is Daniel Peterson v. Minerva Surgical Inc., case number 24-712, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source: Law360

There Is A Circuit Split Over FCA Enforcement

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that for False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement, proof is required that kickbacks directly influenced treatment decisions. This ruling creates a significant circuit split and poses challenges for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and plaintiffs.

The ruling favored Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., affirming a district court decision and adopting an industry-friendly interpretation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The court held that to prove falsity under the 2010 amendment, the government must show that a kickback was the but-for cause of a submitted claim.

We are not sure what effect the “but-for causation” standard will have in FCA cases involving kickbacks. That must be cleared up. It could mean that the whistleblower must demonstrate that Medicare billing wouldn’t have occurred without the kickbacks. The DOJ argued that Regeneron’s $2,000-per-dose vision drug Eylea, which cost Medicare about $11.5 billion over the past decade, was billed due to kickbacks in the form of copay assistance.

While the Third Circuit accepted a looser connection between kickbacks and claims in 2018, the Eighth Circuit in 2022, the Sixth Circuit in 2023, and now the First Circuit have adopted the stricter interpretation. The First Circuit’s decision will impact future FCA cases to some degree, as it requires a direct link between kickbacks and claims.

The ruling noted that but-for causation isn’t the only way to prove such cases; explicit certification of compliance with the Anti-Kickback Statute can also be used. 

The DOJ has already obtained over $1 billion from similar cases, but the future of FCA enforcement under the current administration remains uncertain. If the administration disagrees with the First Circuit’s holding, it may seek high court review due to the circuit split.

The U.S. is represented by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division.

The case is U.S. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., case number 23-2086, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Source: Law360

Supreme Court Rules Telecoms Can Be Sued For Overcharging Schools Under False Claims Act

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that telecom companies participating in the federal E-Rate program, which supports school and library connectivity, can be sued under the False Claims Act (FCA) for excess payouts. This unanimous decision came after AT&T’s Wisconsin Bell challenged a Seventh Circuit ruling that allowed auditor Todd Heath to pursue claims that the company overcharged schools and libraries, thus recouping more money than it should have from the E-Rate program.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, explained that the $100 million in E-Rate funds at issue are similar to most government spending, as the money comes from private parties through taxes, fines, or fees and is then distributed by the government. The court resolved a split with a Fifth Circuit decision by affirming that the government provided the funds, making them subject to FCA claims.

The E-Rate program is funded by fees on telecom services mandated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and collected by the Universal Service Administrative Co. Wisconsin Bell argued that since these funds are collected from the private sector, they are not subject to FCA claims.  The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the government provided a portion of the funds, thus allowing whistleblower Heath’s case to proceed to trial.

Heath alleges that Wisconsin Bell defrauded the E-Rate program by charging schools higher prices than other customers, violating the FCC’s “lowest corresponding price” rule. The court’s decision allows Heath’s claims to be heard in court, emphasizing the importance of protecting government funds for education.

The ruling has been praised by advocates for E-Rate recipients, who believe it will help ensure fair pricing and improve the efficiency of the Universal Service Fund and the E-Rate program.

The case is Wisconsin Bell Inc. v. United States ex rel. Todd Heath, case number 23-1127, before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team 

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers in litigation in all parts of the country. Claims continue to be made against multiple bad actors in the corporate world. The widespread Whistleblower litigation is increasing nationwide at a rapid pace. However, there is also mounting opposition to the litigation instigated by some powerful forces in Corporate America. 

If you are aware of fraud being committed against the federal or state governments, you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud.  If you have questions about whether you qualify as a whistleblower, or you need help with a case, a Beasley Allen lawyer will be glad to make a free and confidential evaluation of your claim.

Lawyers on our Whistleblower Litigation Team are listed below. You can contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Members of the team include: Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Lauren Miles, Leon Hampton, Jessi Haynes and Tyner Helms.

Workplace Litigation

A Look At Georgia Workplace Injury Statistics

Kendall Dunson, a lawyer in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, discusses workplace litigation pursuant to Georgia law. Kendall has extensive experience in the handling of complex litigation involving products liability issues. That includes cases involving injuries and deaths in the workplace. 

Workplace injuries and deaths are tracked by multiple sources.  It is important to document and track this information to identify trends and to improve workplace safety.  Working Georgians spend the majority of their waking hours in their places of employment.  Those workplaces must be safe places for the workers. 

Agencies and entities, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Georgia Fair Labor Platform, document and report workplace injuries and deaths for the state.  However, there is often a delay in releasing statistics to the public because of the complex analysis that goes into producing these reports.  Therefore, Kendall’s focus is on 2023 statistics.

In 2023, a total of 192 employees lost their lives in workplace incidents.  When a worker dies in an on-the-job injury, the loss extends beyond the workplace to the family that lost a loved one and a provider.  Likewise, even serious or nonfatal injuries require significant time from work, and in some instances, result in a reduction to the injured employee’s earning capacity.  Georgia’s workers’ compensation framework, like most states, will cover related medical expenses and will compensate injured workers at a rate of 2/3 of their average weekly wage when the employee is not able to work. Kendall says every client he has ever represented that was injured in the workplace complained that they are unable to cover their expenses with a 1/3 reduction in their income.  Longer recovery times result in additional financial distress.

In addition to the reduced income associated with Georgia’s workers’ compensation program, an injured employee is not able to recover for pain, suffering, stress, mental anguish, and other damages available under state common law.  State workers’ compensation programs are not intended to make injured workers whole.  Injured workers and the families of those killed in workplace incidents must examine their respective circumstances to determine if other parties might be responsible for an injury or death.  

Pursuing legal rights outside of Georgia’s workers’ compensation scheme, when available, is the only way to make an injured worker or the family of a deceased worker whole.  Oftentimes, lawyers who specialize in workers’ compensation are not qualified to handle cases outside of workers’ compensation. Determining whether a defective product was responsible for an injury or death is a classic example.  Since transportation and machine-related incidents combined make up a significant portion of yearly work-related incidents, it is important to have each incident analyzed by a lawyer skilled both in workers’ compensation and in product defects litigation.

Lawyers In Our Mobile Office Investigate An On-The-Job Injury Case

High pressure paint sprayers are responsible for countless on-the-job injuries each year.  Airless sprayers are mechanically pressurized devices that compress paint or other fluids and force them through a spray tip, or nozzle.  These devices generate extreme pressure with some reaching over five thousand pounds per square inch (psi).  Spray directly from the tip, ruptured hosing, or other leaks in the system can cause fluid to be injected into the skin.   Often those injected will not fully appreciate the severity of the injury.  

Despite leaving miniscule entry wounds, paint or other fluids released into the body tissue and bloodstream can have major health consequences.  The wounds are highly susceptible to infection, often requiring amputations of fingers, hands, or arms.  In fact, if not treated promptly and appropriately, the amputation rate after one of these injuries is reported to be between 30 and 48%.    

Evan Allen in our Mobile office is currently investigating one such accident.  Our client was working at a local fabrication shop where paint sprayers were routinely used to apply paint to large steel beams.  On the day of the accident, an over pressurization occurred to a co-worker’s spray gun.  Unfortunately, as a result of over pressurization, our client was sprayed in the face and eyes and was severely injured. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

Securities Litigation Team At Beasley Allen

Lawyers in our firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section are currently working on a number of cases involving corporate security issues. James Eubank, who leads the Securities Litigation Team, worked for years as a securities regulator with the Alabama Securities Commission. James was involved in a number of important securities fraud investigations while he was with the state.  

We will give an update on pending securities litigation in the April issue. In the meantime, you can contact a member of our Securities Litigation Team concerning any securities cases or issues relating to securities. The team includes the following lawyers: James Eubank, who heads the team, Demet Basar, Rebecca Gilliland and Paul Evans. Dee Miles, who heads the section, also works with the team. 

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. She will have a lawyer on the Litigation Team respond. 

PREMISES LIABILITY LITIGATION

Legislative Update: Negligent Security And Tort Reform

So-called “tort reform” has again surfaced in Georgia. The proposed legislation—S.B. 68 (“Senate Bill 68”)—aims to drastically reduce the rights and remedies of individuals harmed by the negligence of others. While Senate Bill 68 is wide sweeping, it specifically targets negligent security actions. In simplest terms, negligent security suits seek to hold corporations accountable when they fail to provide adequate security measures to protect people on their premises, and citizens are killed or hurt as a result. Senate Bill 68 threatens to fundamentally change how these cases are litigated to the detriment of those harmed. Some of the critical changes are discussed below.

As drafted, Senate Bill 68 imposes new requirements that favor corporate landowners. Under the proposed bill, a party can succeed on a negligent security claim if they prove that the corporation had “particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person.” 

The bill defines this phrase to mean “information actually known to an owner or occupier and deemed credible by the owner or occupier” and “such information being specific as the identity of the third person, the nature and character of the wrongful conduct, the degree of dangerousness of the wrongful conduct, and the location, time, and circumstances of the wrongful conduct.” 

In other words, a corporation cannot be held accountable for its failure to provide security unless it knew the exact who, what, when, where, and how of the event at issue. This language is problematic for several reasons, but chief among them is that it actually incentivizes corporations to do less in terms of implementing preventive security measures. They can avoid responsibility if they simply turn a blind eye and claim ignorance of any “particularized warning.”

Senate Bill 68 provides an alternative basis for a party to prove their claim, but it also misses the mark. Specifically, a party must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the corporation “reasonably should have known that a third person was reasonably likely to engage in . . . wrongful conduct on the premises.” This provision seeks to replace the traditional “preponderance of the evidence” standard with the “clear and convincing evidence” standard—a higher burden of proof typically reserved for fraud cases, not negligent security actions. If passed, this language will allow corporations to hide their negligent acts behind a manufactured burden of proof.

Given the damaging impact that Senate Bill 68 will have on the right of individuals to seek redress in the courts, it is critical for constituents to lobby their elected representatives so that the bill does not become law. At every turn, Senate Bill 68 takes power away from the people and places it in the hands of corporations.   

Carbon monoxide Poisoning: Potential Premises Liability Case

Every year thousands of people suffer serious injuries and even death from carbon monoxide poisoning. Carbon monoxide is a silent killer. A person may never even know they are breathing in the dead gas because it is colorless, odorless, and has no taste.  Beasley Allen lawyers have handled a number of carbon monoxide poisoning cases against property owners, management companies, and suppliers or servicers. 

Carbon monoxide poisoning is often due to hazardous conditions existing on the property, such as damaged gas lines or defective appliances. Property owners or management companies can be found negligent for failing to properly maintain appliances, conduct necessary repairs, or install carbon monoxide detectors as required by law. In Georgia, property owners have a non-delegable duty to ensure their premises are in a safe, habitable condition, which includes the premises complying with all health and safety codes and regulations. 

Early signs of carbon monoxide poisoning include dizziness, headaches, weakness, confusion, and an upset stomach. That’s why they are often mistaken for other ailments. It’s most imperative for those who live in an apartment complex, for example, and have experienced these symptoms, to notify your landlord or property manager right away. That serves two purposes: one, it gives them the opportunity to correct the problem; two, they are on notice of the gas leak, defective or malfunctioning appliances, or whatever the circumstance may be. Of course, they may already know of the dangerous condition and have failed to take the necessary corrective action. 

Class Action Litigation

Honda Idle Stop Class Action To Go To Trial 

Beasley Allen lawyers represent plaintiffs and class members in a certified class action lawsuit against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda), filed in California Federal Court. The style of the case is In re Honda Idle Stop Litigation, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

On October 3, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Mark C. Scarsi, finding the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 satisfied, granted class certification for the following 13 states: Alabama, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.  Our named plaintiffs represent current and former drivers of Honda’s model year 2015-2021 Pilot, Ridgeline, and Passport vehicles, and Acura TLX and MDX vehicles, equipped with a 3.5L NP0 engine, nine-speed automatic transmission, and an A52 starter motor assembly (the Class Vehicles).

On October 17, 2024, Honda subsequently entered a Notice of Appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Judge Scarsi’s order certifying the 13 state classes. On January 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Honda’s petition finding that Judge Scarsi’s ruling on Class Certification was proper. 

With Honda’s petition for appeal denied, trial is set for May 20, 2025, in the Central District of California.

At trial, our trial team will put forth substantial evidence that the Class Vehicles contain a defect in their Automatic Idle Stop (AIS) systems that places Class Vehicles at an unreasonable risk of shutting down and not restarting upon application of the throttle as designed, which Honda referred to internally as “no-restart”. 

Our trial team will also present evidence that Honda sourced an upgraded and more robust start motor (the A53 starter) to correct the no-restart behavior but uniformly forces class members to submit to a software update campaign before having a chance at receiving a warranty covered replacement starter. 

For class members who experience the no-restart condition following Honda’s software updates, the manufacturer places another hurdle for repair. The class vehicles must demonstrate the no-restart behavior on command at a Honda authorized dealership before qualifying for the upgraded replacement starter.  This is an intentional obstacle to warranty repair, as the no-restart behavior is intermittent.

Interestingly, one plaintiff has continued to experience no-restart events after receiving the upgraded A53 starter motor and Honda has recently begun replacing failed starters with a second new upgraded starter known as the A54. This example, as well as the others mentioned above, is the reason we sought class relief and the courts have agreed with that reasoning as well by moving the case to a jury for final determination as to what is fair for the purchasers of these Honda vehicles. We believe a jury will grant the relief we seek after they have had an opportunity to see the evidence we have uncovered in this matter. 

The plaintiffs/class members are represented by Clay Barnett, Demet Basar, Rebecca Gilliland, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin, and Trent Mann of Beasley Allen, along with Andrew T. Trailor, P.A. and lawyers with Dicello Levitt, LLP.  We will keep our readers informed on developments in this important litigation. Dee Miles, who heads up our firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, will also be involved in this case. 

Lawsuit Filed Against Laughing Gas Makers & Vape Shops

A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed against several nitrous oxide manufacturers and seven Orlando-area smoke shops. The suit, brought by the estate of Margaret Caldwell, claims that the manufacturing, marketing, and sales practices of these companies have contributed to a public health crisis and Ms. Caldwell’s death due to nitrous oxide addiction.

It’s alleged in the complaint that nitrous oxide products are deceptively marketed for recreational use, targeting young people with flavors like “mango smoothie” and “cotton candy.” These products are promoted for their potential to produce a “high” when inhaled, leading to widespread addiction, severe bodily harm, and death.

Nitrous oxide, commonly used for anesthesia in the automotive industry, and as a whipping agent in cooking, is also used recreationally for its dissociative effects. Prolonged use can cause serious health issues, including dementia, imbalance, paralysis, asphyxiation, brain damage, and death.

Ms. Caldwell, a Lake County, Florida resident, died in November 2024 at age 29 due to nitrous oxide addiction. The suit names several manufacturers, including Dino Hemp LLC, Galaxy Gas LLC, Sweet and Sour Holdings LLC, United Brands Inc., Monster Gas Inc., and Baking Bad Group Inc., as well as smoke shops like Fuego Smoke & Vape LLC and Puffzilla LLC.

I agree with lawyers for the estate who say that “if these products are truly for culinary purposes, they should not be sold in smoke shops.”

The estate is represented by Mike Morgan, John A. Yanchunis, James D. Young, Ronald Podolny and Riya Sharma of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group.

The case is Dial v. Fuego Smoke & Vape LLC et al., case number 2025-CA-000960-O, in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida.

Source: Law360

Kratom Producers Are Facing A Proposed Class Action 

Kratom manufacturers are facing a proposed class action lawsuit in a New York federal court. They are accused of not disclosing that kratom is as addictive as opioids. The complaint, filed by a consumer known as “J.P.,” claims that kratom activates the same brain receptors as opioids, leading to similar risks of addiction and withdrawal symptoms. The suit argues that consumers wouldn’t expect an “all natural” product to act like an opioid.

The lawsuit highlights that kratom is highly addictive, causing significant physical, psychological, and financial harm to many users. It accuses the defendants of deceptive sales practices regarding OPMS-brand kratom products, which include powder, capsules, and liquid extracts. The complaint states that kratom’s active ingredients are similar to opioids, a fact not disclosed to consumers.

Kratom withdrawal symptoms, such as depression, sleep problems, and bone pain, are likened to those of opioid withdrawal. Derived from a Southeast Asian plant, kratom has been used in traditional medicine in Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia for over 150 years. Advertisements for kratom often promote it as a coffee substitute or antidepressant without mentioning its opioid-like addictive potential.

The suit seeks to represent New Yorkers who purchased kratom, alleging violations of New York’s business law, unjust enrichment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. 

J.P. is represented by Neal J. Deckant of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The case is J.P. v. Martian Sales Inc. et al., case number 1:25-cv-00741, in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York.

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

GLP1/Ozempic Litigation Update: Considering Master Complaint Allegations And Upcoming Rulings On Preliminary Issues

The GLP1/Ozempic MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has grown to almost 1,500 filed cases. This litigation involves personal injury cases linked to severe stomach and intestinal complications, as well as severe risks like intraoperative aspiration.

The plaintiffs recently filed their 244-page Master Complaint detailing that Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly did not disclose the gastrointestinal and other health risks associated with GLP1s. The MDL judge recently issued a scheduling order to establish deadlines for motions to dismiss. This procedural step is typical, allowing defendants to seek dismissal or attempt to narrow the allegations in the Master Complaint. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss on January 24, 2025, and the plaintiffs’ responses will soon be due.  

The MDL judge is also considering issues regarding the proper diagnosis for gastroparesis and a unique preemption-type issue.  Both sides are working up experts.  There will be an evidentiary hearing on May 14, 2025, where the judge will consider the reports and evidence on these initial issues.  This hearing will be crucial in deciding the admissibility of the plaintiffs’ expert opinions, but the plaintiffs are optimistic that the litigation will proceed after these rulings.

NEC Infant Formula Update

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to investigate and handle cases where cow’s milk-based formulas and milk fortifiers have caused Necrotizing Enterocolitis in premature infants. Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a serious and often fatal condition that results in the degradation and subsequent perforation of the bowels.  

In earlier issues, we shared with you that cases filed in federal court have been centralized in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer. The MDL has selected four bellwether cases to serve as “test” cases before a jury.  The first of four bellwether trials is currently scheduled to begin in May.  In preparation for these trials, the parties will file a number of pre-trial motions. 

Recently, the defendants in the MDL moved to exclude expert testimony by Dr. Jennifer Sucre, a nationally recognized neonatologist.  Dr. Sucre plans to testify regarding the link between formula feeding and NEC. As of the date of publication, Judge Pallmeyer has not ruled on defendants’ motion. 

Hair Relaxers MDL Outlines Schedule Leading To Bellwether Trials

Last month’s report brought news of bellwether trial plans in Cook County, Illinois state court for later this year. Now, the Northern District of Illinois, the court presiding over the consolidated federal cases, has set a schedule for trials as well. 

On February 2, 2025, Judge Rowland issued an order requiring both plaintiffs and defendants to identify 20 cases each for the initial bellwether pool by April 20, 2025. This pool will consist of cases filed before February 2024 and will focus on the specific injuries of endometrial, uterine, and ovarian cancer. 

The court expects at least 12 cases to be selected for trial, after a period of discovery related to both experts and case-specific issues. Case-specific discovery will begin in approximately May of this year and run through the end of September. After that, focus will turn to the experts selected to testify in each respective case, with general causation experts named by plaintiffs in October 2025 and by defendants in December 2025. 

The calendar year 2026 will focus on challenges to experts, the naming of case-specific experts and any final discovery needed in each individual bellwether case, along with motions for summary judgment.  

In state court news, the hearing scheduled in Illinois to hear defendants’ consolidated Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs’ Master Complaint has been moved to a date most likely in mid-March 2025. Around this same time, the court will address Illinois state bellwether cases, currently set to begin in November 2025 and continue into 2026. 

Beasley Allen Battles Companies Selling Suicide Chemical

  Last year, Lawyers at Beasley Allen secured a win at the motion to dismiss stage in a sodium nitrite case on behalf of four families. These families tragically lost their loved ones due to an Alabama company (Duda Energy, LLC) marketing and selling sodium nitrite—a dangerous chemical with no known household use. 

The court has entered a scheduling order. The parties are now working to schedule depositions over the next few months. 

Apparently, being dissatisfied with the court’s initial ruling, Duda has recently filed additional motions to dismiss or transfer the cases to other states. Beasley Allen lawyers have filed a rigorous opposition and will argue against any additional dismissal and delay tactics. 

Duda Energy had known since 2019 that its sodium nitrite had no household use and was being promoted on suicide forums like SanctionedSuicide. Despite this knowledge, the company continued to sell the chemical, including to children, without requiring a business license or implementing other precautionary measures. A Duda executive even admitted in a 2019 letter that the company was aware of the product’s use in suicides but chose to continue selling it as a business decision. 

In addition to the lawsuit against Duda, Beasley Allen also filed a case against Amazon last year on behalf of a mother who tragically lost her son due to sodium nitrite.  Like Duda, Amazon sold sodium nitrite on its platform despite knowing the harms associated with the product since at least 2018. This case is pending in King County, Washington. Currently, the case is stayed pending resolution of appellate matters in other similar sodium nitrite cases in Washington. 

Depo-Provera MDL Update

Depo-Provera is an injectable birth control medication linked to an increased risk of meningiomas. Meningiomas are tumors that develop on the membrane (the meninges) covering the brain and spinal cord. Although most often benign, meningiomas can create a myriad of neurological issues, such as seizures, strokes, and migraines. 

On February 7, 2025, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) approved formation of a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) for women who took Depo-Provera and developed meningioma intercranial brain tumors. The litigation is consolidated in the Northern District of Florida, with the U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers presiding. In the JPML’s order, Judge Rogers’ accolades were highlighted: 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers, to whom we assign this MDL, is an able jurist with extensive and exceptional experience presiding over large products liability MDLs. We are confident that she will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course.

The MDL will litigate the issues of whether defendants knew of the alleged risks of meningioma, whether they failed to adequately warn of this risk, and whether defendants failed to promote safer alternatives, such as Depo-SubQ Provera 104 (a lower dose, subcutaneous alternative). Beasley Allen lawyers in our Mass Torts Section are actively investigating cases for individuals who were given Depo-Provera shots for at least one year and developed cerebral or spinal meningiomas. 

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

EPA Concerns Over ‘Forever Chemicals’ In Fertilizer

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has raised concerns about the health risks posed by “forever chemicals” in fertilizers, particularly for those living or working near farms. These chemicals, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), are found in some fertilizers made from sewage sludge, or biosolids.

In a draft risk assessment, the EPA highlighted potential health risks from PFAS exposure through three methods of sewage sludge use or disposal: land application as fertilizers, surface disposal in landfills, and incineration. The two main PFAS of concern are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), which, despite being phased out of production, remain persistent in the environment and human bodies due to their strong chemical bonds.

The EPA warns that exposure to PFOS and PFOA can lead to cancer and other serious health issues, including liver, immune system, cardiovascular, and developmental effects. As we have previously reported in prior issues, these chemicals were commonly used in products like firefighting foam, water-resistant sprays, and ski wax.

Traditional wastewater treatment does not effectively remove PFAS, leading to their accumulation in sewage sludge. The EPA’s assessment indicates that applying sewage sludge with PFAS to land or disposing of it in certain types of landfills can pose health risks exceeding acceptable thresholds.

The draft risk assessment focuses on those living near impacted sites or relying on their products. That would include farm families and their neighbors. While there is no set timeline for finalizing the assessment, it could lead to new regulations aimed at reducing exposure risks. This assessment is part of the EPA’s broader efforts to manage PFAS, including listing them as hazardous substances and setting national drinking water standards.

Source: Law360

Paraquat Litigation Update: Key Developments And What To Expect

As Beasley Alen lawyers continue to advocate for those injured from toxic substances, we are providing an important update on the ongoing Paraquat litigation. We greatly appreciate the trust of lawyers who refer paraquat cases to our firm. We are committed to keeping them informed of recent developments that may impact the litigation’s trajectory. The following are key updates in this litigation. 

JCCP (California)

A significant change has occurred in California’s coordinated litigation. Judge Edward Weil has replaced Judge Treat, who previously deferred to Judge Rosenstengel in aligning proceedings with the MDL. A Case Management Conference is scheduled for February 28, 2025, which will offer valuable insights into the direction of the litigation over the coming year.

MDL (Southern District of Illinois)

The Multi-District Litigation (MDL) is progressing with bellwether trials set for October 2025. These trials will play a crucial role in shaping the overall litigation, particularly through expert testimony on causation. The outcomes will likely influence future legal strategies and potential settlement discussions.

State Court Cases

Several state court cases are moving forward with critical trial dates approaching:

• Pennsylvania: The coordinated cases have a trial set for March 31, 2025.

• Washington: A state court trial is scheduled for May 10, 2025.

Our lawyers are closely monitoring these cases, as their outcomes may significantly impact settlement discussions and broader litigation strategy.

Potential Settlement Discussions

As is often the case, bellwether trials can prompt settlement negotiations. Our litigation team is diligently preparing each case, ensuring all necessary documentation, including medical lien information, is in place to position clients for either trial or resolution.

Purdue Receives Extension To Finalize $7.4 Billion Opioid Settlement

Purdue Pharma has received approval for an extension of the mediation period until March 31 to finalize a new $7.4 billion opioid settlement. This extension was granted without opposition from certain governmental claimants, indicating the seriousness of the settlement.

The new settlement includes $6.5 billion from the Sackler family and $900 million from Purdue. Creditors can opt-in to release the Sacklers and receive a share of the $6.5 billion or opt-out and still receive part of Purdue’s $900 million while retaining the right to sue the Sacklers.

This approach avoids nonconsensual third-party releases, which were previously overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The extension allows time to complete the settlement documentation and prepare a Chapter 11 plan.

The extension was supported by various creditor groups, despite one objection that was overruled. Purdue filed for Chapter 11 in 2019 due to liabilities from its role in the opioid crisis. A previous $5.5 billion settlement was overturned by the Supreme Court, leading to the current mediation efforts.

The individual claimants group is represented by Thomas Lauria, J. Christopher Shore and Michele J. Meises of White & Case LLP and Edward E. Neiger and Jennifer A. Christian of ASK LLP.

The State of New York is represented by David E. Nachman, Andrew S. Amer, Colleen K. Faherty, Muhammad Umair Khan, Martin A. Mooney and Robert J. Rock of the Office of the New York State Attorney General.

The unsecured creditors committee is represented by Arik Preis, Mitchell Hurley, Sara L. Brauner and Theodore James Salwen of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

The governmental entities group is represented by Kevin C. Maclay, Todd E. Phillips and Serafina Concannon of Caplin & Drysdale.

The government litigation claimants group is represented by Kenneth H. Eckstein, Rachael Ringer and David E. Blabey Jr. of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Kami E. Quinn of Gilbert LLP, David J. Molton of Brown Rudnick LLP and Melanie L. Cyganowski of Otterbourg PC.

Maryland is represented by Senior Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Edmunds.

Nassau County is represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik and Brett S. Bustamante of Napolo Shkolnik.

The case is In re: Purdue Pharma LP, case number 7:19-bk-23649, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Source: Law360

Federal Judge Dismisses Boston’s Opioid Claims

A Massachusetts federal judge has dismissed Boston’s lawsuit against drug benefits intermediaries, stating the city waited too long to file. The complaint, moved to federal court in March 2024, detailed years of opioid crisis costs. However, Judge Patti B. Saris noted Boston knew of the opioid harm long before pursuing claims against Express Scripts Inc. and OptumRx Inc., and well before the applicable statutes of limitations expired.

Judge Saris highlighted that other municipalities, represented by Boston’s co-lead counsel, had sued the same defendants as early as 2018. This undermined Boston’s argument that the statutes of limitations were paused due to intentional concealment or extraordinary circumstances.

The judge rejected Boston’s efforts to extend the statutes of limitations, stating the city knew or should have known of its injuries by 2018. The court also rejected Boston’s contention that the statutes extended from the date of the last incident or due to ongoing conduct.

Judge Saris cited the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Rotella v. Wood, stating RICO claims accrue when a plaintiff knows of an injury. The judge found Boston failed to show ongoing conduct to support extending the window for its public nuisance claim.

The complaint, initially filed in January 2024, detailed increased financial burdens on the city. However, the judge said Boston failed to show the issues were ongoing due to the defendants’ actions. The judge also declined to address whether Boston could obtain equitable relief under its RICO claim, noting the city had not shown a likelihood of ongoing conduct.

In summary, Judge Saris ruled that Boston’s claims were time-barred and unsupported by evidence of ongoing misconduct.

The city of Boston is represented by Elizabeth Smith, Vincent Greene, Mimi Liu and Fred Baker of Motley Rice LLP, Christopher C. Naumes and Robert T. Naumes Sr. of Naumes Law Group LLC, and its own Adam Cederbaum, Caesar P. Cardozo and Batool Raza.

The case is City of Boston et al. v. Express Scripts Inc. et al., case number 1:24-cv-10525, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Source: Law360

PROCEDURAL MATTERS THAT AFFECT LITIGATION

Supreme Court Backs Broad Lawsuit Revival Rule

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services that cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice can be reopened under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, even if a statute of limitations would typically block the lawsuit. Justice Samuel Alito explained that voluntary dismissals qualify as “final proceedings,” making them eligible for review under Rule 60(b).

This decision overturned a Tenth Circuit ruling against Gary Waetzig, who sued Halliburton for age discrimination. After losing in arbitration, Waetzig sought to revive his case. A district court allowed the revival under Rule 60. Halliburton argued that voluntary dismissals shouldn’t be considered final, but the Supreme Court disagreed.

Halliburton has been represented by Matthew D. McGill, Jonathan C. Bond, Patrick J. Fuster, Lochlan F. Shelfer and Joshua R. Zuckerman of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and Heather F. Crow of The Kullman Firm PLC.

The case is Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services Inc., case number 23-971, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Source: Law360

Supreme Court: Preliminary Injunctions Don’t Justify Attorney Fees

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that litigants who win preliminary injunctions are not considered the “prevailing party” and that as a result they are not eligible for attorney fees. This decision, in a 7-2 ruling, states that only a final judgment that results in a material and enduring change between the parties can confer prevailing party status. The ruling will apply to legal advocacy groups making it harder for them to recoup attorney fees in civil rights cases.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, argued that this decision contradicts Congress’s intent to encourage private lawsuits for civil rights enforcement. The case in question involved a class action by indigent Virginia drivers challenging a state law that suspended driver’s licenses for unpaid fines. The drivers won a preliminary injunction. The law was eventually repealed. As a result, they could not secure a final judgment. This led to the Supreme Court’s decision.

The ruling emphasizes that preliminary injunctions do not resolve the rights of parties on the merits. Therefore, they don’t confer “prevailing party” status. This decision by the Supreme Court overturns previous appellate court rulings that allowed preliminary injunctions to be the basis for declaring a litigant the prevailing party. The majority opinion suggests that if Congress disagrees with this interpretation, it can amend the statutory language.

The case is Gerald F. Lackey v. Damian Stinnie et al., case number 23-621, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source: Law360

CONSUMER CORNER

Potential Antitrust Violations

Beasley Allen lawyers are assessing potential antitrust cases because these laws are designed to promote fair competition and protect consumers and businesses from harmful and predatory business practices. One of the prime areas of antitrust laws are anticompetitive agreements. Typically, you see most of these agreements via unreasonable horizontal conduct or through single firm conduct. Though the overarching goal is to limit competition, there are many forms of anticompetitive agreements that lawyers should be looking for as they are vetting potential cases. Some include: 

• price-fixing; 

• market division; 

• bid rigging; and 

• group boycotts.

Horizontal Conduct is when businesses get together to act in a manner that limits competition, increases prices or hinders competition from entering into the market. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will challenge the practice when horizontal trade restraints are unreasonable. Single Firm Conduct is a practice where a single company tries to, or successfully monopolizes trade by acting to maintain or acquire a dominant position by stopping new companies from entering the market. 

Price fixing is illegal when two or more competitors make an agreement to act in a way that raises, lowers, maintains, or stabilizes the price for a good or service. Because of the secretive nature of these types of agreements, circumstantial evidence will be considered by courts. Lawyers must be wary about all price similarities equating price-fixing schemes. That’s because many times, the market conditions are the catalyst for similarities in pricing. 

In the event that the government or private party proves that defendants had plain price-fixing agreements, those defendants are not allowed to try to justify the agreement even if the price was reasonable, by claiming the price was necessary to avoid “cut-throat competition,” or even to stimulate competition.

Market Division is a practice where two or more companies agree to reduce competition by not encroaching on the other company’s market area. These violations are Sherman Antitrust Act violations. Where these will be most seen is in situations where competitors are dividing market areas and their competition elects to not enter the market area, allowing one competitor to hold the market share of the agreed market. 

Bid Rigging occurs when multiple companies are engaged in bidding for work and the companies undermine the bidding process by taking turns to be the lowest bidder or sitting out entirely to allow another competitor to guarantee the bid award. There are also situations where the lowest bidder then hires the losing bidders as subcontractors, thereby sharing in the contract. 

Group boycotts are agreements between two or more companies or persons wherein the parties agree to refuse to deal to keep another person or entity from being competitive in the market. This can be either to completely prevent the potential competitor from entering the market or it can aim to ensure that existing competitors are at a disadvantage. Group boycotts can lead to per se violations of antitrust laws and may violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Source: Federal Trade Commission

PFAS Litigation On-The-Rise

Litigation involving consumer products such as smartwatch wristbands, adhesive bandages, tampons, and juice containers is increasing. It’s been alleged in filed cases that the products contain toxic PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) and that manufacturers misled consumers about their safety. This trend follows high-profile settlements over firefighting foam containing PFAS.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against major companies recently. Defendants in the lawsuits include:

• Hershey Co.: It’s alleged that Kisses and Bubble Yum products contain PFAS.

• Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics America Inc.: It’s alleged that their smartwatch wristbands contain PFAS.

• Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue Inc.: It’s alleged that Band-Aid bandages contain PFAS.

It’s necessary to prove a scientific connection between PFAS exposure and harm. Courts have rejected some testing methods, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed. For example, a California federal judge dismissed claims against Procter & Gamble’s Tampax tampons due to what was said to be unreliable testing methods. Coca-Cola also faced a lawsuit over its Simply Orange Juice but managed to get the initial complaint dismissed.

Despite these challenges, these companies should be held accountable for not warning consumers about PFAS risks. Regulatory attention on PFAS health risks is driving this litigation trend. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has linked PFAS exposure to cancer and other health issues, prompting more lawsuits. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are determined to seek justice in this litigation. 

Experts believe more products, including food wrappers and apparel, may be targeted in future lawsuits as awareness and regulations around PFAS continue to grow.

Source: Law360

Smith & Wesson Lawsuit Refiled In Federal Court

A group of Catholic Sisters has refiled a lawsuit in federal court against Smith & Wesson’s directors and senior executives. The company is accused of prioritizing “greed” and “political concerns” over the interests of the company and its stockholders by ignoring the liabilities of marketing AR-15 rifles used in mass shootings.

The congregations involved are the Adrian Dominican Sisters, Sisters of Bon Secours USA, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, and Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, U.S.-Ontario Province. The first suit was filed in Nevada state court in December 2023, claiming that Smith & Wesson’s board and senior management breached their fiduciary duties by ignoring laws banning or limiting AR-15 rifles.

Defendants in the lawsuit, in addition to Smith & Wesson Brands Inc, are CEO Mark P. Smith, general counsel Kevin A. Maxwell, vice president of sales Susan J. Cupero, and board members Robert L. Scott, Anita D. Britt, Fred M. Diaz, Michelle J. Lohmeier, Barry M. Monheit, and Denis G. Suggs. The suit was refiled in federal court after being dismissed at the state level last June.

The Sisters in the lawsuit allege that the state court dismissed their suit without properly analyzing their claims and relied on unsupported conclusions. They also claim that Smith & Wesson made false and misleading statements to investors to garner support against a stockholder proposal submitted by the Sisters.

The federal complaint includes allegations that Smith & Wesson’s AR-15 rifles violate federal laws and that the company intentionally makes these rifles easily modifiable to function as fully automatic weapons. The Sisters argue that the company’s board and executives prioritize short-term profit over long-term risk, contributing to gun violence.

The congregations are represented by Matthew L. Sharp of Matthew L. Sharp LTD and Jeffrey M. Norton and Benjamin D. Baker of Newman Ferrara LLP.

The case is Adrian Dominican Sisters et al. v. Smith & Wesson Brands Inc., et al., case number 2:25-cv-00236, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Source: Law360

Gaming Addiction Litigation Update

More and more gaming addiction cases are being filed around the country as parents become increasingly aware of the extreme harm these gaming companies have caused for our youth. These cases revolve around the addictive qualities of games capturing young people, resulting in poor performance in school, cognitive issues, developmental delays and self-harm.  

In January, a California family filed a lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court against Roblox Corporation and Google. The complaint alleges these companies deliberately designed addictive gaming products that negatively impacted their 11-year-old child. The lawsuit alleges that Roblox uses features like in-game purchases to take advantage of young users, prioritizing profit over their well-being. The family claims that the companies failed to warn parents about the dangers of gaming addiction. Instead, they promoted Roblox as educational and creative. 

As a result, the child in the California case reportedly developed compulsive gaming habits and suffered social and cognitive harm. This case is part of a growing trend of individual lawsuits against video game companies that we believe will continue to evolve.

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Is Designed To Work For Clients

Beasley Allen operates in five separate sections: four litigation sections and one administrative section. The separate litigation sections concept has worked very well. It has definitely benefited Beasley Allen clients and has also allowed our lawyers to bring about national changes in product and workplace safety. 

Over the past 45 years, Beasley Allen lawyers have handled all sorts of civil litigation for plaintiffs. The Administrative Section supports the four litigation sections that could be described as “mini-firms” within Beasley Allen. Those four litigation sections are the Mass Torts Section, the Toxic Torts Section, the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and the Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. 

Each section has a team of lawyers and support staff working closely together, creating efficiency and case proficiency within each section. Successful section performance leads to better firm performance overall, allowing us to expand our resources and enabling firm growth. Year after year, we believe our approach has allowed us to help more of those who need it most. 

The Mass Torts Section

Andy Birchfield heads our Mass Torts Section. Melissa Prickett serves as the Section’s Director. With over 50 years of combined legal experience, Andy and Melissa lead the firm’s largest section in medical devices, medication and other practice areas. The section currently handles cases involving Acetaminophen, Hair Relaxers, Kratom, NEC Baby Formula, Ozempic, Social Media, Video Game Addiction, Ultra-Processed Foods, Depo-Provera and Talcum Powder.

The Toxic Torts Section

Rhon Jones leads our firm’s Toxic Torts Section with Section Director Tracie Harrison’s assistance. The section focuses on toxic exposure cases. Recent cases involve Camp Lejeune Water Contamination, Paraquat and Firefighting Foam. 

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section

Dee Miles is the Section Head of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Michelle Fulmer is the Director of the Section. The section currently handles cases involving Business Litigation, Class Action, Consumer Protection, Securities cases, Employment Law and Whistleblower cases.

The Personal Injury & Products Liability Section

Cole Portis heads our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section with Sloan Downes serving as the Director of the Section. The section handles Auto Accidents, Aviation Accidents, Defective Tires, Negligent Security, On-the-Job Injuries and Truck Accident cases. 

The Administrative Section

Finally, the Administrative Section includes Accounting, Operations, Human Resources (HR), Information Technology (IT) and Marketing. Michelle Parks is the Director of Accounting, Michelle Fulmer is the Director of Operations, and Kimberly Youngblood serves as the Director of HR, IT and Marketing.

Since we reorganized the firm’s structure in 1998, Beasley Allen’s record speaks for itself. The structure has contributed greatly to our firm’s success. Section Heads and Directors have been able to concentrate on the volume of cases in their section. They quickly recognize when additional resources are needed. Lawyers in each Section have been able to focus on cases within their specialty. This has allowed them to achieve favorable results. The efficiency and teamwork generated by the sections concept has resulted in our firm being recognized as one of the best litigation firms in the country. This has been for the benefit of the folks we represented. 

The Latest Look At Case Activity At Beasley Allen

Our BeasleyAllen.com website provides the latest information on the current case activity at Beasley Allen. The list can be found on our homepage, the top navigation, or the practices page of our website (BeasleyAllen.com/Practices/). The following are the current case activity listings for the Beasley Allen Sections. 

Practices

• Business Litigation
• Civil & Human Rights
• Class Actions
• Consumer Protection
• Employment Law
• Medical Devices
• Medication
• Personal Injury
• Product Liability
• Toxic Exposure
• Whistleblower Litigation

Cases 

The cases in the categories listed below are handled by lawyers in the appropriate Litigation Section at Beasley Allen. The list can be found on our homepage, on the top navigation, or on the Cases page of our website (BeasleyAllen.com/Recent-Cases/).

• Acetaminophen
• Auto Accidents
• Auto Products
• Aviation Accidents
• Camp Lejeune 
• Defective Tires
• Depo-Provera
• Hair Relaxers
• Kratom
• NEC Baby Formula
• Negligent Security 
• On-the-Job-Injuries
• Ozempic
• Paraquat
• Social Media 
• Talcum Powder
• Truck Accidents 
• Ultra-Processed Foods
• Video Game Addiction

We will give a brief explanation below for each of the listed categories:

• Acetaminophen
  Beasley Allen lawyers handle cases of mothers who took acetaminophen while pregnant and gave birth to a child later diagnosed with autism or ADHD. Cases also include children treated with the drug during the first 18 months of life who developed autism or ADHD. 
• Auto Accidents
  Our lawyers handle life-altering and deadly automobile accident cases caused by defective products and driver negligence. Crashes may involve single vehicles, multiple vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, transit vehicles or trucks. 
• Auto Products
  Our team will meticulously investigate your accident, examine vehicles for defects or product liability issues, identify responsible parties, file lawsuits, manage legal documents, and strive to maximize your compensation.
• Aviation Accidents
  Lawyers investigate aviation accidents resulting from mechanical failures, human error and other causes. Crashes injure hundreds, sometimes thousands, of victims onboard aircraft and on the ground every year.
• Camp Lejeune 
  Our firm handles cases of victims exposed to contaminated water supplies at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987. Exposure to toxic water caused serious injuries, including cancer, adult leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, major cardiac birth defects and others.
• Defective Tires
  Defective tires can lead to automobile accidents resulting in injury or even death. Beasley Allen lawyers investigate these accidents caused by blowouts, tread separation and other tire failures. 
• Depo-Provera
  We are investigating cases for individuals who were given Depo-Provera shots for at least 1 year and developed cerebral or spinal meningiomas.
• Hair Relaxers
  Our lawyers handle cases for women injured by toxic chemicals in hair relaxers. Women who frequently use hair relaxers may develop uterine cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids or breast cancer.
• Kratom
  Beasley Allen is investigating cases of serious adverse effects experienced by individuals who have consumed products containing Kratom.
• NEC Baby Formula
  Our firm investigates cases of premature babies who developed necrotizing enterocolitis after consuming infant formulas manufactured by brands like Enfamil and Similac. Necrotizing enterocolitis is an intestinal disease that can lead to long-term complications and even death.
• Negligent Security 
  Establishment owners and managers are responsible for maintaining safe premises. When someone is injured or killed as a result of negligent security, Beasley Allen lawyers hold owners and managers accountable.
• On-the-Job-Injuries
  We investigate workers’ compensation cases, often finding that defective industrial products are to blame for workers’ injuries or deaths. Quite often, the incident results in a product liability case. Industrial products include manufacturing, farming, construction or other types of equipment.
• Ozempic
  We investigate cases of gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism related to the use of diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro.
• Paraquat
  Our firm handles cases for victims injured by paraquat, a popular herbicide linked to Parkinson’s Disease that has been banned or partially banned in at least 92 countries. Paraquat remains legal in the U.S., risking the health and safety of workers on over 2 million U.S. farms.
• Social Media 
  Our youth are facing a mental health crisis caused by social media addiction. Beasley Allen advocates for these youth who have suffered harms, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, ADD/ADHD, self-harm and suicide.
• Talcum Powder
  Beasley Allen handles cases for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer after regular use of talcum powder. For decades, companies like Johnson & Johnson knew that talcum powder might cause cancer but failed to warn consumers. 
• Truck Accidents 
  Our firm handles accident cases involving tractor-trailers, commercial vehicles and other large trucks. These cases often involve multiple, well-funded defendants and complex insurance issues.
• Ultra-Processed Foods
  We are actively investigating cases where ultra-processed foods are linked to type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, especially in individuals diagnosed before age 18.
• Video Game Addiction 
  We are investigating cases of video game addiction caused by companies intentionally designing games to be highly addictive, especially for minors, using psychological tactics.

Resources to Help Your Practice

Beasley Allen is a civil litigation law firm solely handling cases for plaintiffs.  From the firm’s beginning in 1979, Beasley Allen has only represented victims of wrongdoing, and that will never change. 

The firm, by choice, only represents individuals, companies and governmental entities that have been wronged and have suffered damages due to the wrongdoing of another. Our lawyers do not handle any defense work, neither civil nor criminal. There are no exceptions. The only time we represent companies in Corporate America is when they are victims of wrongdoing and are plaintiffs in civil litigation. This has been our policy since the firm’s establishment.

We are honored and humbled that our firm has been consistently recognized as one of the leading law firms in the country representing only claimants involved in civil litigation, much of it being complex and complicated. Being trial lawyers representing only victims of wrongdoing is a privilege for us. Our firm has been truly blessed.

We understand the importance of sharing resources and collaborating with our peers in the legal profession. We are committed to investing in resources that can help our fellow trial lawyers in their work. We have compiled a list of our most popular resources for those seeking to work with us or seeking information to help their law firm with a case.

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter 

Beasley Allen sends out a Co-Counsel E-Newsletter specifically tailored with lawyers in mind. It features case updates, highlights key victories achieved for our clients, and informs readers about the firm’s latest resources. You can get it online by visiting our website, BeasleyAllen.com, and clicking the Articles link.

Recalls Update

We try our best to stay current on the latest significant consumer recalls. Contact our JLB Report Team at [email protected] if you have any questions or believe we may need to include a recall.

The Jere Beasley Report

We also consider The Jere Beasley Report a service to lawyers and the general public. We provide the Report at no cost monthly, both in print and digitally. Visit our website, BeasleyAllen.com and click the Articles link.

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Preparing Oneself Is The Best Way To Prepare Your Witness

Elizabeth Weyerman, a lawyer in our Toxic Torts Section, has some tips for trial lawyers. She discusses preparing a witness for their testimony at all stages of a case. 

Preparing yourself as the lawyer in a case is the key to successfully preparing a witness to testify. The lawyer should be more knowledgeable about the witness’s involvement in the case than the witness. A witness should never give testimony without first understanding 1) their testimony is under oath, 2) the potential issues they will be asked about, and 3) how this testimonial process will work.

Testimony—whether in an investigation, deposition, or in trial—should not be taken lightly. It is your duty as the lawyer to ensure your witness understands the gravity of giving testimony under oath. 

Their sworn testimony should not be your first time hearing your witness’s side of the story and it should not be their first time being asked about their involvement in the case. While it is the attorney’s job to protect the witness from answering questions involving privileged communications, the witness should understand their answers should be specific in order to not volunteer information, and to not guess or speculate. You should prepare a draft of potential questions your witness will likely be asked, prepare the witness for any difficult issues, and have an organized file the witness reviews. 

Your witness needs to understand how this legal proceeding will work to ensure they wait until the full question is asked before answering verbally and clearly. Preparing yourself to thoroughly know your witness’s involvement in the case and making sure they feel confident about the procedure of giving sworn testimony ensures your witness will be ready to testify.

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

The Life And Legacy Of The Honorable Jimmy B. Pool

Circuit Judge Jimmy Pool retired on January 16. His leaving the bench was due to the age restriction on judges. Under Alabama law, no person can be elected or appointed after reaching the age of 70. We are paying tribute in this issue to Judge Pool’s many years of service in Montgomery County. 

Early Life and Education

Born and raised in Alabama, Jimmy Pool has dedicated his life to the pursuit of justice and the betterment of his community. He earned his Bachelor’s degree in Finance from Auburn University in 1971 and went on to receive his Juris Doctor from the University of Alabama School of Law in 1974.

Career Path

Jimmy’s career in law began as an Assistant District Attorney in Montgomery County, where he served from 1974 to 1980. His dedication and skill quickly earned him the position of Chief Deputy District Attorney, a role he held until 1980. Following his tenure as a prosecutor, Jimmy transitioned to private practice, where he worked as a trial lawyer from 1981 to 2009.

In 2009, Jimmy was elected to the Montgomery County District Court, where he served with distinction until 2021. His commitment to fair and unbiased justice was recognized by his peers and the community, leading to his election as a Circuit Judge for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Alabama in 2018. He assumed office on January 20, 2019, and has since been a cornerstone of the Montgomery County judiciary.

Judicial Philosophy and Achievements

Judge Pool is known for his judicial philosophy of providing swift, fair, and unbiased justice. He has a particular interest in establishing a meaningful DUI Court aimed at reducing repeat DUI offenses through intensive rehabilitation programs. His approach to the law is characterized by a deep commitment to justice and a desire to make a positive impact on the lives of those who come before him.

Throughout his career, Jimmy Pool has received numerous awards and recognitions, including the Pro Bono Award, the Al Sansone Service Award, the Charles Langford Statesman Award, and the Howell Heflin Award. He has also held leadership positions in various legal associations, including serving as Treasurer of the District Judges Association of Alabama and as past president of both the Montgomery County Bar Association and the Montgomery County Association for Justice.

Community Involvement

Beyond his judicial duties, Jimmy is actively involved in the Montgomery community. He is known for his dedication to public service and his efforts to improve the legal system. His work has had a lasting impact on the community, and he continues to be a respected figure in Montgomery County and throughout the state of Alabama.

Conclusion

Jimmy Pool’s career is a testament to his unwavering commitment to justice and his community. His contributions to the legal field and his dedication to fair and unbiased justice have made him a respected and influential figure. As his time serving on the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court comes to an end, Jimmy’s legacy of integrity, fairness and service will serve to inspire future generations of legal professionals. 

Jimmy Pool has been an outstanding jurist and a credit to the legal profession and the court system. After his retirement, Jimmy will find ways to continue serving the people of Montgomery. I am honored to call this man my good friend!

Rhon Jones Named To Lawdragon 500 Leading Environmental Lawyers – The Green 500

Rhon Jones has been named to Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Environmental lawyers. The 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Environmental Lawyers, also known as The Green 500, recognizes top lawyers dedicated to environmental law. These lawyers work on various fronts, from corporate energy and housing development to protecting endangered species and open land. This year’s list highlights the enduring talent in this critical field, selected through a rigorous process of journalistic reporting, nominations, and peer vetting. The number of nominations received was higher than ever, reflecting the growing importance of environmental law.

Rhon Jones heads up our Toxic Torts Section. His verdicts and settlements while at Beasley Allen are estimated at $3 billion, and total recovery for all cases he has worked on exceeds $30 billion. Rhon is on the cutting edge for representing governments and water systems for various forms of environmental harm and has handled environmental or toxic exposure cases in at least 15 different states.

Rhon has been instrumental in high-stakes cases, including the BP Deepwater Horizon and opioid litigation. He served on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for the BP Deepwater Horizon MDL and acted as class counsel in the economic and property class settlement against BP, which paid out over $10 billion. His efforts also contributed to the $18.5 billion BP settlement with the federal government and states, securing more than $2 billion for Alabama. In environmental contamination, Rhon has excelled, securing confidential settlements for multiple water systems against manufacturers of PFCs. Notably, he worked with the great Johnnie Cochran on a $700 million settlement for over 20,000 residents in Anniston, Alabama, affected by PCBs from Monsanto. This was the largest settlement of its kind in Alabama history.

Rhon continues to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the Camp Lejeune litigation and is active in Round Up and Paraquat litigation, demonstrating his unwavering commitment to justice and environmental protection.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Tristen Chandler

Tristen Chandler has been with Beasley Allen for over five years. She has worked in the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section during that time. For the past three years, she has worked as a paralegal, assisting Beasley Allen lawyer Paul Evans with various important cases. Tristen has dealt with complex issues like insurance fraud and antitrust litigation. Tristen’s responsibilities encompass a comprehensive range of tasks that span the life cycle of a case—from client communication and document management to drafting discovery, reviewing documents, assisting in deposition preparation, and filing essential paperwork with the court. 

Tristen is originally from Utah. She and her husband Matt Mitchell were married in April 2023. They have a tradition of taking annual camping trips to Utah, spending quality time with her grandparents while exploring beautiful locations like Goblin Valley and Dead Horse Point. Tristen shares that their household is lively, thanks to their many cats—Frito, Cheeto, Jade, Peanut, Teri, Yaki, and Patty—who add joy and companionship to their lives. In her free time, Tristen immerses herself in reading and gardening. She has a particular passion for fantasy novels but delights in mysteries and thrillers. 

When asked about her favorite aspect of working at Beasley Allen, Tristen highlights the supportive community within her department and the firm’s mission of helping people. She values camaraderie among her colleagues in the Consumer Fraud section and cherishes their work’s positive impact on individuals in need of legal assistance.

We are fortunate to have Tristen at Beasley Allen. She is a hard-working dedicated employee. 

Cathy Hall

Cathy Hall began her career with Beasley Allen in July 2000, nearly 25 years ago. She currently works as an intake specialist in our Personal Injury and Products Liability Section, where she engages with potential clients, gathers essential information, and opens cases in the firm’s case management system. As an intake specialist, these responsibilities are critical to helping the firm achieve its mission of helping those who need it most! 

Cathy comes from a large family with 13 siblings and is a proud mother of two college graduates, a daughter, Christie, and a son, Cameron. She takes great pride in their achievements. In addition to her children, Cathy adores her grand dog, Sasha, who brings her much joy. In her free time, Cathy loves spending quality moments with her family and is actively involved in her church community. She is dedicated to reading God’s Word daily and seeks to embody its teachings. 

Cathy says she finds great satisfaction in connecting with clients and making sure they know their cases are important, no matter the outcome. She values the firm’s warm and supportive atmosphere. We are thankful to have Cathy, another dedicated hard-working employee, with us!

Will Jones

Will Jones started his journey at Beasley Allen in 2025. His focus is on cases involving Camp Lejeune and PFAS. He comes to us after about three years in practice with Friedman, Dazzio, & Zulanas in Birmingham. 

While there, he worked on plaintiffs’ cases involving PFAS litigation in Alabama, and the City of Rome, Georgia case. He also worked on insurance defense work related to auto accidents and premises liability claims. 

From a young age, Will was drawn to the practice of law, particularly in areas like personal injury and toxic exposure. His passion lies in representing clients who have suffered avoidable harms, and he feels privileged to advocate for them. Through his work, Will strives to bring about meaningful change and justice.

Will is meticulous when it comes to handling cases, always paying close attention to the details. One of his standout cases involved taking on manufacturers and users of synthetic chemicals (PFAS) that were contaminating local rivers and waterways. Representing clients who simply wanted these harmful chemicals removed from their water supply was incredibly rewarding for him. What truly stood out was how they used litigation to help communities clean up their waterways and build new filtration systems, making a real difference in people’s lives.

Will is active in several prestigious associations including the Alabama Association for Justice, American Bar Association, the Alabama State Bar’s Young Lawyers Section, and the Birmingham Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Section.

The Montgomery, Alabama native has a deep love for animals and owns two dogs. In his free time, you’ll find him on the golf course or tennis court, enjoying the outdoors. Will treasures moments with his family, whether they’re playing or watching sports together. He’s also an active member of the First Baptist Church in Montgomery, where he participates in various community outreach programs. 

Will earned his Juris Doctorate from Samford University Cumberland School of Law in 2021 after graduating from Auburn University in 2018 with a Bachelor of Arts in Finance.

We are fortunate to have Will at Beasley Allen. He will be an asset to the firm. 

Nicholas Kohrs

Nick Kohrs, an experienced trial lawyer, came to Beasley Allen in 2025. He brings to the firm 15 years as a successful trial lawyer. Nick is most welcome to the firm. He focuses on cases involving medications and medical devices. In his role, Nick will assist with discovery and electronically stored information.

Gathering electronic data requires knowledge that many lawyers may not fully understand or find interesting. Nick excels in this area, always willing to do the work that others might overlook. He holds several certifications, including the Everlaw Project Manager Certification (covering Reviewer, Storybuilder, Data Operations, and Managing Review), ACEDS eDiscovery Executive Certification, and ACEDS eDiscovery Technology Certification. 

Nick is passionate about piecing together the puzzle of what, where, and how to gather the necessary information to build a strong case and help maximize clients’ recovery. One of his notable cases was his involvement in the BP Oil Spill litigation. As part of a dedicated team of lawyers, Nick sifted through millions of pages of documents, contributing significantly to the litigation and ultimately aiding in the recovery efforts for those along the Gulf Coast affected by the historic spill.

Nick is a member of several prestigious organizations, including the American Association of Justice, the Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), Electronic Discovery Reference Model, Louisiana Association of Justice and the Louisiana State Bar Association

Nick and his wife, Colleen, have been happily married for 17 years and have two “wonderful children.” In his free time, Nick enjoys running half-marathons and rowing. He is also deeply involved in his community, serving as the President of his church and school Men’s Club. Since 2012, Nick has been a proud member of the 610 Stompers, raising funds for various local non-profits. Additionally, he is part of a BBQ team that supports children and families dealing with pediatric brain cancer through the annual Hogs for the Cause event.

Nick earned his Juris Doctorate from Loyola University New Orleans College of Law in 2011 after graduating from McNeese State University in 2007.

We are most fortunate to have Nick with us. He brings valuable experience to the firm. Nick will be a definite asset. 

Slade Methvin

Slade Methvin first worked at Beasley Allen as a law clerk. He practiced law in Jefferson County for several years and returned to Beasley Allen in January. Slade focuses on cases against major social media companies like Meta, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok, representing parents, children, boards of education, and counties affected by these platforms.

Slade was exposed to the legal profession at an early age and has always been passionate about helping people in their time of need. In 2023, he was selected to the National Trial Lawyers top 40 under 40.

Slade excels at helping clients understand the complexities of the law and establishing strong liability theories. Recognizing that most cases are not straightforward, he has developed a skill for thinking outside the box to navigate challenges since graduating from law school. One of his notable cases involves a medical lawsuit in Mississippi against a prison healthcare company. The client was accused of faking an injury for over two months, which ultimately led to paralysis from the waist down—a simple exam could have prevented this. Slade and his team were able to recover a significant amount of money for the client’s struggling family after he passed away. This outcome provided a lasting legacy for the client’s wife and children.

Slade is active in several prestigious associations, including the
Alabama Association for Justice and the Alabama State Bar’s Young Lawyers Section.

The Montgomery, Alabama native loves to unwind by playing golf on the weekends. He also enjoys the company of his three playful dogs, who keep him active and entertained. In addition, Slade loves spending quality time with his family and friends.

Slade earned his Juris Doctorate from Samford University Cumberland School of Law in 2021 after graduating from the University of Alabama in 2018.

Slade will definitely be an asset to the firm. We are fortunate to have him back with us. 

Donna Puckett

Donna Puckett has been part of the Beasley Allen team for more than 20 years. Currently, she works as a paralegal in the Mass Torts Section, working closely with Navan Ward and Aigner Kolom, lawyers in the section, on the intricate metal-on-metal hip cases. Guided by Navan and Aigner, Donna contributes to case investigations, drafts pleadings, manages discovery processes, organizes files, and reviews important documents. She also maintains consistent communication with clients and attorneys while adeptly handling various tasks that are vital to the firm’s success.

A proud mother, Donna has a son who is a talented musician and twin daughters who are both registered nurses. She says her heart belongs to her four grandchildren, ages eight to two, whom she describes as her “true LOVES!” Donna enjoys spending quality moments with her family in her spare time, particularly watching her two oldest grandchildren play sports. She is passionate about visiting the beach, exploring flea markets and vintage stores, and indulging in true crime shows. Donna’s dedication to her work and family exemplifies the spirit of Beasley Allen, where compassion for clients and colleagues thrives.

Donna appreciates the genuine care that the firm extends to both clients and employees. “The culture here makes such a difference,” she shares. “My co-workers feel like family, and I’ve made some of my closest friends at Beasley Allen.” 

Donna is a hard-working, dedicated employee. We are fortunate to have her at Beasley Allen. 

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

One of our staff employees being featured in this issue shares her favorite Bible verses with us.

Cathy Hall shares several of her favorite verses with us. The first one is something she prays for her protection.

Keep me safe as You would Your own eye. Hide me in the shadow of Your wings. Psalm 17:8

The second verse serves as a reminder that God is everything she needs.

I love You, O Lord, my strength. 2 The Lord is my rock, and my safe place, and the One Who takes me out of trouble. My God is my rock, in Whom I am safe. He is my safe-covering, my saving strength, and my strong tower. Psalm 18:1-2

Another one of the verses she shared is one that she turns to for guidance.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not trust in your own understanding. 6 Agree with Him in all your ways, and He will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:5-6

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

I wrote in the May 2024 issue about “The Capital City.” My hope then was for those in leadership in Montgomery to join together in unity and truly make Montgomery “The Beacon on a Hill” that it most certainly should be. While some progress has been made, the overall needs are still quite apparent. For example: Violent crime, including almost daily shooting deaths, remains a major problem; the need for vast improvements in public education persists; while economic development has been good, it can be much better; and we badly need to keep our local healthcare industry – including keeping Jackson Hospital open and stopping the continuing loss of departing physicians – alive and well. 

Our leaders have a duty to work together for the common good and to make Montgomery a model for others to follow.   What was written in May, 2024 applies to our current situation. So, let’s take a look at what was said then. Clearly, the assessment still applies today.

Montgomery’s Capital Role Calls It To Higher Standards

Montgomery is the Capital City, and that distinction carries with it a definite need for the city to be a role model. The word capital is derived from the Latin caput meaning “head.” Simply put, Montgomery, as Alabama’s Capital City, is the state’s seat of government. 

I have always believed that Montgomery should be a “shining light on a hill” for others to see and emulate. It should be a model on how a government should be run, and that is civil, efficient, effective, and with a profound dedication to the Rule of Law. Anything less should not be tolerated for the Capital City by the citizens of Montgomery. Let’s take a look at our history, our present, and where we are headed. 

The City of Montgomery bears the weight of history on its shoulders. As the Cradle of the Confederacy and the birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement, our city stands as a living testament to America’s journey – a journey marked by profound injustice, hard-won progress, and the never-ending quest for a more perfect union. Presently, the city is at a crossroads facing some critically important decisions that will have to be made. 

As Alabama’s Capital City, Montgomery has a special responsibility to lead by example. Its unique place in history as both the Cradle of the Confederacy and the birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement reminds us every day that some of the nation’s most pivotal events took place in these very streets and buildings we call home. As turbulent as this history is, it leaves a legacy to cherish, respect, uphold and to learn from. 

Montgomery’s duality provides the incredible opportunity to stand as a model for how we can overcome division and move forward as a unified people. That’s no small task, but it’s one all in Montgomery should embrace. 

We must set our sights with laser-focus on the same goals of equality, freedom, and prosperity. The more we divide ourselves over our differences, the weaker and more spiritually impoverished our society becomes.

The laws and policies that shape Alabama’s commercial and political landscapes are born here in Montgomery. The precedents we set reverberate throughout the state and in many cases throughout the nation. We must embrace the future with a good look to our past and build a city we can all be proud to call home. My message to all in our city, but especially to those in leadership roles, let’s be that “light on a hill” that reflects our goodness for all to see!

Hopefully, Montgomery will soon become that needed Beacon on the Hill. All people will be the beneficiaries when that happens. It will mean that our leaders, in unity, have been leading effectively and that things have changed dramatically in the right way in Montgomery. Others will then look to the Capital City for inspiration. All of us in Montgomery have an obligation to help make that happen.  

MONTHLY REMINDERS

These reminders are for all of us at Beasley Allen. They are put in the Report for a purpose. The reminders are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. While they are for all at Beasley Allen, we send them to all who get the Report. All persons in a leadership role, including those persons in government at every level, will benefit by reading the quotes and applying the lessons learned from them in their daily lives. 

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 

2 Chronicles 7:14

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right.

The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.

Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America.

Rep. John Lewis speaking on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on March 1, 2020

Ours is not the struggle of one day, one week, or one year. Ours is not the struggle of one judicial appointment or presidential term. Ours is the struggle of a lifetime, or maybe even many lifetimes, and each one of us in every generation must do our part.

Rep. John Lewis on movement-building in Across That Bridge: A Vision for Change and the Future of America

The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice.

Bryan Stevenson, 2019

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country….corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 

PARTING WORDS

Fred Gray – A Great American – Will Leave A Powerful Legacy

Dr. David Fleer coordinates the Fred Gray Institute’s Fellows Program which began in March 2021. David is a professor of religion and communication and special assistant to the president of Lipscomb University in Nashville. During the last calendar year, David preached for churches in 30 different communities, and he regularly presents at conferences, seminars, and lectureships in the Churches of Christ. His work for the Institute is needed. David writes in this issue about my good friend, Fred Gray. 

Attorney Fred D. Gray Casts His Eyes Upon the Future

The career work of Attorney Fred Gray is revered and respected by every law student and lawyer in America.

In his first ten years as a lawyer, Fred Gray played a significant role in four landmark Supreme Court Cases and for over seven decades adroitly handled numerous civil rights cases, including the well-known Tuskegee Syphilis study.

So many of his cases led to foundational rulings providing strong protection to all citizens. And many of his cases appear as relevant today as when argued before the court. 

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and the desegregation of public education all come to mind. 

For these and other significant legal victories, Fred Gray has been celebrated in multiple ways. In January his portrait entered the National Portrait Gallery at the Smithsonian. He has received honorary doctorates from numerous universities. In 2022 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest award a civilian in this country can receive.

He deserves all the accolades.

But the question for our day and time is this: How can the legacy of Attorney Fred Gray be applied at this moment and how will it effectively be applied into the future?

Here is the good news.

A little over a year ago Attorney Gray commissioned an ad hoc “Futures Committee,” made up of local and national experts, to plan for a new Civil Rights Institute that would have a positive and sustaining impact and grow out of his career work.  

As a result of their efforts, the Fred Gray Institute for Human and Civil Rights has been created to build on the foundational principles of Gray’s legal work and activism. 

As an outgrowth of his life’s work in medical racism, voting rights, gerrymandering, and equal access to high quality education, the Institute will educate, convene, and collaborate toward practical outcomes.

Just as Attorney Gray’s work began in Montgomery with Ms. Parks and Dr. King in 1955, the Gray Institute will launch in Montgomery on March 14 and 15, 2025, with a Dinner and National Symposium. 

Bryan Stevenson will keynote the event.

The Inaugural Symposium will focus on the topics of medical ethics, voting, and education, and be defined by moderated panels with diverse speakers, ample time for all participants to join the conversation and contribute through Q&A, reflection sessions, and small-group discussions.

The planners anticipate a “generative” experience, where presentations and discussions lean into exploration, interdisciplinary dialogue, and especially practical outcomes and strategic actions. The Symposium will answer questions like: What are the implications? How can we deepen this conversation? What shall we do? What’s next?

The audience for the events will be quite expansive: lawyers, law professors, students, community organizers and leaders, public officials, activists, people engaged in voting rights, medical ethicists, educators, and other thoughtful members of the public.

While the Presidential Medal of Freedom appropriately recognized Mr. Gray’s past accomplishments, the Fred Gray Institute for Human and Civil Rights intends to sustain and advance human and civil rights into the future.

Attorney Gray recently said, “We have made great strides in the struggle for equal justice for all. But much work remains to be done. When I first began to practice civil rights law, I knew I could not do this work alone. As I collaborated in the beginning with Thurgood Marshall and other seasoned legal minds, I am now looking for collaborating partners to advance our work to the next generation.” 

You may wish to consider collaborating with Attorney Gray as the iconic lawyer casts his eyes upon the future. 

Fred Gray has had a tremendous career, and he will leave a legacy that will be virtually impossible to match. He truly is a great American. Fred’s impact on our Country has been tremendous. As David Fleer says, Fred is looking for “collaborating parties” to advance needed work for the next generation. I encourage you to join the movement. America will be better because of the dedication and work of Fred Gray and that of those who follow his lead, get actively involved and help make a positive and lasting difference in America, the “Land of the free and home of the brave.”